Defining what constitutes shabda - Further discussions on Vedic epistemology

In the Sarva-samvadini -thread, I called for a more specific definition of what would be accepted as zabda. Let us take the thought further in this thread.

The following verse was cited:


Actually, it seems to have been misattributed. I could not find it in Maitreyi. Jiva cites it on several occasions in his Sandarbhas, and it also appears in a number of Gita-commentaries. The GGM editions attribute it to Brihad-Aranyaka 2.4.10, where it indeed exists. Interestingly, only this section is frequently quoted, and the "ityAdi" is placed either after the Vedas or latest after the mentioning of the Puranas. The entire text is interesting:


In other words, all of the following are seen as having emanated from the breathing of the Great Being:


That somewhat elaborates the extent of the apauruSeya-revelation. How do we see commentaries as having emanated from the breathing of the Great Being?

Which Upanishads are included in the realm of apauruSeya-revelation? The Tapani-upanishads? The Caitanya-upanishad? And which histories are included under itihAsa? Commonly Mahabharata and Ramayana are thought of as the Itihasa. What's interesting, though, is that Mahabharata was evidently written after the Upanishads, and that holds true to both academic and traditional standards. Is there therefore a license for further apauruSeya-revelation after the declaration? Can a scripture written by a sage at a later time be declared apauruSeya?

A related issue is the concept of praSThAna-traya. Some traditions narrow the ultimate authority down to praSThAna-traya, namely the Upanishads, Bhagavad-gita and Vedanta-sutra. Where does this threefold definition come from, originally? If it is but a selection made by someone at a particular time, then we would do well to speak of someone's praSThAna-traya instead of the universal praSThAna-traya.

There are two ways of classfying zabda: dRSTArtha (that relating to perceptible objects) and adRSTArtha (that relating to imperceptible objects). (Glossary of Indian Religious Terms and Concepts by N.N. Bhattacharyya P136)

I think that in practical terms this is more important than the argument over what is apauruSeya.

Scholars and others will probably always argue over this apauruSeya idea forever.

Sastras that deals exclusively with adRSTArtha subject matter probably have a better chance of being accepted as canonical. Sastras that present non-scientific ideas about verifiable empirical phonomena do not.

As far as the schools of Vedanta are concerned it would seem that there is agreement what constitutes praSThAna-traya. All Acaryas after Sankara have followed his lead and commented on the Gita, Brahma Sutras, and the first 10 (major) Upanisads (Isa, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, and Brhadaranyaka). (To this some Vaisnava Acharyas have added Svetasvatara). Another thing that was also commented on by all Acharyas was Visnu Sahasranama from Mahabharata.

So to recap all Acharyas (of the Vedanta school) commented on:

The 10 main Upanisads

Brahma Sutras of Badarayana

Gita and Visnu Sahasranama from Mahabharata

Interestingly Sripad Ramanuja actually didn't write a seperate commentary on all 10 Upanisads but wrote 3 commentaries on the Brahma Sutras (Sri Bhasya, Vedanta Sara and Vedanta Dipa). He also did not write a VSN commentary. Their commentary on the VSN was written by Parasara Bhattar, son of Kuresha the foremost disciple of Ramanuja and the separate commentaries on the 10 upanisads was later written by Ranga Ramanuja. Ramanuja himself wrote Vedartha Sangraha where he gathered together the main points of the 10 upanisads rather than write a separate commentary on each.

Madhva not only wote a Brahma Sutra Bhasya, Gita Bhasya, Upanisad bhasyas and VSN bhasya but also a commentary on portions of the Rg Veda Samhita called Rg Bhasya.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana of course wrote Govinda Bhasya, Gita Bhasya, VSN bhasya, and commentaries on Isa and Gopala Tapani Upanisads.

I figured as much, but I wonder why. Is this specifically declared in any of the three? As I cited, there is much more that is said to have emanated from the exhalation of the Great Brahman.

Now, if we argue that those three have been chosen because some of the other sources of evidence contain information that is not up to standard as far as the final puruSArtha is concerned, we are placed to square one, as in the Sarva-samvadini -thread:

Can we interpret certain passages of the scriptures against their literal meaning, or otherwise interpret them in such a way as to not be obliged to accept their import, or the import of some of their passages, while still respecting them as an aspect of the grand revelation?

Then again, if we place ourselves into a position where we judge which aspects of revelation are more befitting, such as the praSThAna-traya over the karma-kANDa rituals, are we not in fact sitting on the same seat with zabda, so to say, with our powers of judgement? I do not mean specifically you or me, but for example the commentators who have chosen to interpret in certain ways. Is there a principle in the form of an insightful saint that can lord over the original revelation even?

It is not that prasthana trayi are the only sabda which are accepted. And even amongst them sruti or Veda is considered higher pramana than the Gita or VSN which afterall are from the Mahabharata. Even the Pancaratra literature are not considered equal to the Veda. Sruti means the Veda samhitas, aranyakas, brahmanas, and selected upanisads. I dare say that there are many later upanisads that are considered border line sruti. Mainly we see the difference in the language. The sruti/Veda is written in Vedic Sanskrit, which has certain distinguishing features like, pedominance of Vedic meters, use of Subjunctive, some Vedic vocabulary and the use of Vedic svara or pitches. In general these things seperate the Vedic from the NON Vedic.

Now it is very possible that somone could write an upanisad (like say Chaitanya Upanisad) in Vedic language and claim it's antiquity. But in general there is a aural tradition of all Vedic srutis which is not there for these later additions.

Vishwanath on BhP 1.1.1

nanu bhakti-yogasya triguNAtItatve bahavo vivadante, tatrAha—dhAmnA svena iti | sva-svarUpeNAlaukika-mAdhurya-mayena bhaktAnAm anubhava-gocarI-bhUtenaiva nirastAH kuhakAH kutarkavanto yena taM, na hy anubhUyamAne’rthe pramANApekSeti bhAvaH |

"Many people challenge the contention that bhakti-yoga is beyond the three modes of nature. In response to this, Vyasa says, "dhAmnA svena." Through the extraordinary sweetness of his essential being, which is directly experienced by the devotees, all their false arguments are eradicated (nirasta-kuhaka). This is because something that is directly experienced does not require any further evidence."

Perception is reality.

Yes, this is a glowing recommendation for pratyaksa. Ultimately everyone has to decide for one's self what they personally accept as sabda. This discision is based upon the other two (or three if you take the Bhagavatam's list) pramanas.

The verb used by Vishwanath is "anubhava" and Jiva also frequently uses the words "vidvad-anubhava," rather than pratyakSa. I mean is "bhagavat-sAkSAtkAra" ? He is not being seen with the material senses. So seeing God is a matter of faith. For instance, I wrote a story a little while back called Adalat Shekh’s Familiar Spirit, An encounter with the paranormal. Most people I tell this story think that I was hoodwinked one way or another. I myself have been barely affected by what I saw--I have not become a ghost seeker or tried to find a familiar spirit of my own, nor have I become especially perceptive of paranormal events since then. So the significance of the event could be said to be proportionate to my faith in its truth.

When it comes to Krishna, what is the singlemost "faith generating" factor? Faith in the scriptures has to come from somewhere, but I think that some people put themselves on automatic pilot when it comes to the scriptures or the guru. That may be alright for some, but I think that on the whole this is not a particularly dynamic approach.

According to the acharyas, faith arises out of random or inexplicable mercy, channeled by devotees. The divine internal potency is present in the devotee's heart as bhakti; it is totally independent in its actions, and springs from the devotee's heart into that of a non-devotee like a spark into the surrounding brush, where it smoulders or bursts into flame. But one cannot truly explain its workings.

In other words, it is irrational. That is why logical argument or authoritarian pressures are ultimately useless when it comes to bhakti.

Bhakti itself may manifest in irrational ways. However the philosophical framework which justifies the practice of Bhakti is not irrational. One may come to the practice of Bhakti by rational or irrational means.

The discussion about pramanas and what constitutes them is afterall only usefull in justifying a particular system to those who are outside it. There is no need of such things when "preaching to the choir".

Perhaps we should ask the question: Is it important to be able to rationally justify our faith to others who are outside our particular tradition?

Certainly since we see that many purva acaryas have bothered to do so, we can say that at least they felt it important enough to delineate.

Ultimately we find however that we have several Vedantic traditions all accepting more or less the same pramanas and all coming to different philosophical conclusions. Not only that but we have Baladeva seemingly accepting four of those traditions as being bonafide.

Does this mean that he considered the different philosophical conclusions of the four sampradayas as just different expressions of the same absolute truth?

Or was that truth, one only, and the appearance of difference in philosophical conclusion either a mistake by the modern followers of those traditions or a misinterpretation by the followers of each tradition of it (the truth)?

All the purva acaryas mention the other systems in their books or commentaries and agree with them on some points and disagree on others. But except for Baladeva I don't know of any other instance where they have given wholesale acceptance to other traditions.

So the discussion about what constitutes sabda is only useful for those followers of the astika traditions. For the nastikas only pratyasa (and to some anumana) are acceptable.

This is a PM sent to Jagat ji, which I am posting on his request. I have added some parts in red for clarification:-

This is regarding your post on "faith in scriptures".

The word "faith" has a lot of connotations. While sometimes I used to believe "this is IT", I had hardly thought the edifice would crumble down so easily in the near future.

Therefore I find that "faith" has to be transformed from unverified "information" to fixed "knowledge" - something which cannot be denied (within reason - otherwise it inevitably leads to solipsism). If there is doubt, then there is some more "homework" to be done!

Now however this transformation takes place - by mercy of devotees or by irrational inexplicable events (which essentially has to be pratyaksha), [I think Jagat ji posted in another thread - a progression from the initial cursory interest to some kind of a direct experience for the "scripture-vaadis". However I think it is universally applicable, barring the exceptions, of course, with some good amount of effort going in between] I have a hunch that God would not have left behind rational (but clean hearted) people out of His design. These people are really averse to "mercy of devotees" kind of channelling unless they first see sufficient reason in it. So what about them?

This is where there is an argument by Madhvacharya - "Faith in scriptures is born when the buddhi doshas - defects of intelligence, are removed." I have always had some second thoughts about "scripture" before I actually went through Madhva's arguments establishing the praamaanya of shabda pramaana on a rational basis. (Ref: Madhva's Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya + Jayatiirtha's tika). If at all there has been any mercy on me, this is the one. [Needless to say, faith is like a chain - it is only as strong as its weakest link. One more link strengthened can make all the difference.]

Regards,
Kishalaya

Perhaps you might find this useful:
Service to Krishna is our Ultimate Concern

A good work on epistemology in the Sri Sampradaaya is the Tattva-Muktaa-Kalaapa by Swaami Desikan.

Regards,
Kishalaya

Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith

What Is Faith?: An Analysis of Tillich’s ‘Ultimate Concern’