Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[anand hudli]

On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> shruti has the "reputation" of being un-authored. With this basic "fact"
> aananda tiirtha has "proved" that the shruti is apaurusheyatva. When I pointed
> out that the arguments finally meant only that shruti may have been written
 and
> their authors' names lost or that shruti may have been un-authored, shrisha
> replied that since un-authordness cannot be dis-proved beyond doubt, it must
 be
> accepted! This doesn't make any sense to me. The situation itself has two
> possibilities and neither can be disproved beyond doubt. I don't know if I am
> making myself clear.

   I have heard that Madhva has argued in detail that the Vedas have
   no author in his VishhNutattvavinirNaya; I have not read that work.
   But it seems that the argument is similar to the following. Before
   it was discovered that the earth revolved around the sun, everybody
   assumed that the sun went around the earth. Further, this was consistent
   with everyday experience. The geocentric theory, therefore, became the
   the truth. Nobody had conclusively disproved that theory. So it was
  accepted. After the discovery that the earth revolved around the sun,
   which was proved scientifically, everybody (I hope) accepted this
   new theory as the truth and the old theory as not true. So what
   Madhva et. al. mean by "reputation" is probably that the lack of
   authoredness of the Vedas is accepted as true in every orthodox
   system of Indian philosophy. Further, no one has to date shown
   otherwise. The heterodox schools and many modern scholars may have
   expressed doubt about this theory but then they have not conclusively
   shown that the Vedas were written by such and such a person or persons.
   So we accept the Vedas to be apaurushheya, based on a strong tradition
   *and* a lack of a conclusive proof that they are paurushheya.

   But at the same time, the heterodox and the secular view is that
   the strong tradition is that any work has to have an author. The
   secular world says even if a work does not an apparent author, it
   only means that the author is not known. Further, no work has
    been conclusively shown that it does not have an author. So the
    secularists maintain that the Vedas have an author or authors.

    It all depends on what system we follow. If we go with the
    orthodox schools, we accept the Vedas as apaurushheya. Otherwise
    join the other camp and say the Vedas have to have an author(s).

    The Vedaanta paribhaashhaa argues that the Vedas are apaurushheya.
    In the beginning of every creation, Parameshvara produces the Vedas
    with the same exact word sequence as in the previous creation.
    Because the utterances of the Vedas are not independent of previous
    utterances of the same type, the Vedas cannot be connected with any
    any person and are hence apaurushheya. Contrast this with the
    utterances of, say the Mahaabhaarata, which are not dependent
    on similar utterances. Thus such sources are paurushheya.

   Shankara comments on Br. Up. 2.4.10 which says that Vedas are
   manifested from the breath of Brahman.
   Shankara says that the Vedas are an authority and are independent
   of any other means of knowledge. The verdict of the Vedas on knowledge
   or rites must be accepted. The Vedas are not like other works.

 Anand