Necessity of an Apaurusheya composition for

Dharma;

All religions including pseudo-religions like Fascism, Communism,

Maoism etc swear by certain principles and code of conduct for
their adherents to achieve some results believed to be “Good”. Let
us not go into the questions of whether the standards are
themselves correctly prescribed in relation to the stated objectives,
and the implementation of these is really proper, leading to the
achievement of the intended goals. But there is a common factor in
all these – the Agama which becomes the “Bible” or reference
work, composed by some one which evokes admiration for its
analysis and prediction of future results, which gets accepted by the
leaders and implemented (some times by force) by the lay people.
Names like Mein kampf, Karl Marx, Mao’s memoirs etc are no less
religious texts than the Quoran and Bible etc. A common factor in
all these is the idea of a chosen group of people by guided by some
easily understood criteria – Aryan race, Comrades, etc. The
process of conversion of the common people into these categories
is also laid down and the new protagonists are promised rewards
commensurate with their commitment. Minor aberrations like secret
societies also form similarly but do not grow large due to limited
attractiveness, logistic problems etc. A lot of importance is attached
to formalism and social rules to ensure cohesion and survival
against fissiparous tendencies.
Acharya Madhva has dealt with the Agama issue in his own
inimitable manner in his first ever composition – Geetha Bhashya
(composed when he was still in his teens possibly). I will quote the
Bhashya and its translation by Dr. B N K Sharma first and then offer
my additional comments.

Geetha Bhashya :

Comment on Shloka 2.13

“Shrutheshcha. Pramanyam prathyakshadivath. Na cha

bauddhadivath. Apaurusheyathvath. Na hi Apaurusheye
Paurusheyaajnanadayah kalpayithum shakyah. Vina na kasyachith
vAkyasya apaurusheyathvam sarvasamayabhimatha-
dharmadyasiddhih. Yashcha thau nAngeekuruthe nAsau samayee.
AprayojakathvAth.
MAsthu dharmO anirUpyathAth ithi chEnna. sarvAbhimathasya
pramAnam vina nisheddum ashakyathvAth. Na cha
siddhirapramAnikasyethi chEnna. sarvAbhimathErEva
pramAnathvAth. anyathA sarvavAchikavyavahArAsiddhEshcha. Na
cha mayA shrutham ithi thava jnAthum shakyam. anyathA va
prathyuttharam syath. bhrAnthirvA thavA syaAth.
sarvadukhakAranathvam vA syAth. yEkO vA anyathA syAth.
rachithathvE cha dharmapramAnasya karthurajnAnAdidosha-
shankA syAth. Na cha adOshthvam svavAkyenaiva siddhyathi. Na
cha yEna kEnachidapaurushEyam ithyuktham ukthavAkyasamam.
anAdikAlaparigrahasiddhathvAth. Atah pramAnam shruthe. Athah
kruthakairdhIrathathra na muhyathi”.

The logical arguments are being offered in the context of the

acceptance of the existence of the Self (soul) as distinct from its
physical body and appurtenances. This distinction is established
both by Prathyaksha (as cognized by sakshi) and Shruthi such as
Chan. Up. Viii.6.5. Further arguments are adduced to show that
Shruthi is infallible as follows:

What follows is extracted from Dr. Sharma’s notes.

The validity of Sruti which is similar to Prathyaksha (requiring no

additional concordance etc) can not be disputed as (can be done) in the
case of statements by the Buddhist or the Charvaka. For the Srutis are
authorless. And it is not permissible to attribute human failings like
Ignorance, organic defects, intention to mislead and so on, to an
authorless source of knowledge (such as the Sruti).
Further without accepting some authoritative statement as authorless, it
will not be permissible to prove the binding characteristic of and sanction
behind supersensuous vales of right and wrong – which are accepted by
most of the philosophic systems of the world and by the thinking section
of humanity. No philosopher who refuses to acknowledge these vales can
be recognized as a thinker or as system-builder worth his pains. For in
the absence of acceptance of such supersensuous values, the system of
thought propounded by him will be futile. One can not argue irresponsibly
– let there be no right or wrong as there is no evidence of their presence.
The universal acceptance of right and wrong, the moral and immoral is
sufficient proof of their existence. Universally accepted values can not be
negatived without convincing proofs. It can not be that their prevalence is
delusive. Universal acceptance of a value is itself proof of its authenticity.

If the validity of verbal testimony or inference as such is disputed, there

will an end of all commerce of life based on inference, ot the spoken and
the written word. It is only after knowing for certain that X hears him
correctly that Y can speak to him purposefully. Since what passes in the
mind of one is hidden from another, one can only go by indications given
by the reactions to one’s words, by another in holding further commerce
with him. A doubting Thomas can have nothing but delusion facing him all
round.
More over, the negation of values of right and wrong in life will open the
door to unmitigated misery all round, by leading to a reign of terror,
promiscuity and exploitation of the weak by the strong.
One has thus ultimately to accept the existence of the moral values of
right and wrong. The sanction behind such values in the final analysis,
has to be traced to an impersonal source. To derive such sanction from a
personal source is necessarily liable. In such cases it is not possible to
assert its irrefragability on one’s personal authority. One need not fear on
that account that any one can get away with tall claims of impersonal
authority to what ever words he may choose to exalt to such a status. The
authoritativeness of the Vedas as impersonal sources of Dharma goes
back to honoured acceptance from time immemorial. Hence its validity.
Therefore the wise man of strong mind will not be swayed by spurious
arguments of those who have no faith in the existence of the soul as
distinct from the body or the universal binding nature of the values of right
and wrong.

Note the argument methodology –

Concepts of right and wrong are universally prevalent in all cultures
being essential for a stable and well ordered society, and must be
based on valid doctrines, as entities, even if they are based on
different detailed criteria. Thus they are valid concepts. The burden
of proof that they are delusory in character must be taken by one
who tries to hold that they do not exist. There is no way that this
can be done by any one, as they are extra-sensory in nature.

The moral codes that determine the rights and wrongs can not be
composed by any individual –as he is prone to many shortcomings
such as Ignorance, defective or inadequate sensory apparatus
(including mind), carelessness or accidental errors, intention to
deceive for some reasons known only to him etc.

Such a code must be based on an authorless Agama pramana,

which can not have any defects as these are all located in authors.
The practicability of such a pramana existing in this world is not
discussed here. But Vedas are known for being the only such
pramanas in historic time. Their continuity, along with the
reputation of being authorless is unique.

It is impossible for any one to argue that some composition which

he has chosen at his will is like Vedas – as they would not have
been preserved as such already in the past. Thus Vedas will
maintain their Apaurusheya character without spurious additions
over time.

All this amplification is derived from the shloka words “Thatha

dehantharaprapthih dhIrah thathra na muhyathi” – The thinking
wise man is not deluded in the matter of the (eternal) soul obtaining
a new body (after death) – (as it is as normal as the body getting
different bodies in boyhood, youth and oldage).
 In the above analysis in Geetha bhashya, Madhva has not gone
into greater detail about Paurusheya Agama – Testimony which is
composed by individuals over time – Ex. Mein campf. He has
touched upon the subject in other compositions in its different
aspects and presented the logical derivation of its likely
shortcomings.

To avoid repetition, I will extract only important points which are

enlarging the scope of arguments.

In Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, Madhva briefly touches upon the

self validating pramanas :

ऋगादयश्च चत्वारः पञ्चरात्रं च भारतम् |

मूलरामायणं ब्रह्मसूतर् ं मानं स्वतः स्मृ तम् || १.३०||

अविरुद्धं च यत्त्वस्य प्रमाणं तच्च नान्यथा |

एतद्विरुद्धं यत्तु स्यान्न तन्मानं कथञ्चन || १.३१||

The four Vedas beginning with Rigveda, Pancharatra,

(Maha) Bharata, Moola Ramayana and Brahma Sutras are
considered as self-validating authority.

What ever else is not contradictory to these is also

Pramana (valid authority) and not otherwise. What ever is
opposed to these is not valid authority under any
circumstances.

NOTE: This statement is from Bhavishyath parva. The existence of

at least one composition, which does not depend for ensuring
certainty of its validity by concordance with another is necessary to
avoid eternal logical regression for proving validity of any
statement which deals with Athindriya entities like Merit/Sin, Life
after death and rebirth, nature of the soul or Supreme Being etc.,
none of which are capable of being cognized by Prathyaksha
(sensory perception) or sheer logic (which does not have any base
of proved data) which can support inference of conclusions. In the
Vedanta, this is identified as the Vedas. The other compositions
mentioned here stand the tests of absolute concordance with the
Vedas and of Apthathva – being recited by a person who is all
knowing and sincere, with a view to let His shishyas know the
actual truth – as they are all attributed to the Supreme being
Himself in various forms.

The acceptance of any pramana (means of securing knowledge) as

valid proof for knowledge (prama) is by a conscious decision of the
cognizing person through his faculty called Sakshi. All of us have
the experience of cognizing many facts as indubitably true –
whether the knowledge is secured by the senses or by the
analytical processes of the mind. In all cases, there has to be a
final testing/ verifying / approving process of the knowledge when
such a firm conclusion has to be reached. This conclusion of validity
is reached at the same time as the original knowledge is cognized
and not as a separate process. The theory of such cognition based
on universal experience is called Pramana svathasthva which is
upheld by Tatvavada as distinct from Pramana parathasthva, where
the validity can only be established by other means such as
concordance analysis etc separately. This organ of the soul – which
is intrinsic to the soul itself and cognizes both the knowledge as
well as its validity is called Sakshi.
But, it is also found that some times, what has been grasped as
valid knowledge was later found to be invalid by additional new
knowledge or further analysis. The incorrect functioning of the
cognition process in such cases is attributed to Dosha (defective
cognition) which stops Sakshi from cognizing its validity at the first
instance itself, when cognizing the specific knowledge. In all cases,
the judgement of Sakshi about the validity of knowledge is final
and true. For instance, in all our internal mental experiences such
as happiness, misery etc or with many types of knowledge secured
by a good sensory organ, no one ever develops doubts about what
was felt or seen. Thus an eye witness in a court of Law is always
accorded primacy over all other evidence. The possibility of the eye
witness himself telling untruths or being mistaken due to
insufficient light etc is always considered as defects in his evidence,
which vitiate his statements without calling into question of the
primacy of direct visual evidence.
Based on this theory of validity, Madhva holds that a Pramana is
always considered valid if it has no defect in it – as in the case of a
sensory evidence given by a earnest person. Vedas being
Apaurusheya (not having any composers) are considered as perfect
and without defects, as any defect such as inadequate or wrong
knowledge, inattention or carelessness in the action, deliberate
attempt to deceive etc, must originate in the composer rather than
in the composition itself. If this is not accepted, even the words of
totally trustworthy persons can be doubted about their validity.
Vedas do not have any defects as they have no authors and are
eternal compositions which have existed from beginningless time in
exactly the same way as they exist today. Therefore, they can not
have any defects in them. Their validity is not established by any
concordance with other pramanas or the trustworthiness of the
authors as the case will be with other compositions.
The other compostions such as Pancharathra or Mahabharata
cited by Madhva pass two criteria of validity – they totally concord
with the Vedas and are also authored by the Supreme Being
Himself, who is eulogized by the Vedas and is considered as a
totally trustworthy, all knowing and sincere teacher.
Vadiraja comments that while knowledge from correct Prathyaksha
also has similar validity, it has not been included in the text quoted
above, as it is so obvious that even a potter who makes pots can
prove it, by direct evidence that it is valid when it has no defect like
being too near, too far etc.

Madhva has also described a superior Prathyaksha called Yogi

Prathyaksha, which can cognise directly Athndirya entities such as
souls, Sin etc in his Pramana lakshana. The Rjus who attain the
positions of Brahma and Vayu are the highest class of souls capable
of such knowledge. This will be described later under the
appropriate heading. The other souls like lesser gods, Rishis etc
known for their superior knowledge and cognition are also capable
of lesser vision, but are far superior to the ordinary human being.
They are distinguished by their intrinsic superior features of the
bodies as indicated in the following shlokas. In Vishnu Tatva
Nirnaya, they are also described as being the “Seers” of the Vedas,
who congise not only the eternal shruthies but also grasp their
validity. In Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, their features are
described.

Sloka (121 )

.षण्णवत्यङ्गु लो यस्तु न्यग्रोधपरिमण्डलः |

सप्तपादश्चतु र्हस्तो द्वात्रिं शल्लक्षणै र्युतः ||
असं शयः सं शयच्छिद् गु रुरुक्तो मनीषिभिः || १.१२१||

He whose measurements are 96 angulas in height (from

the top of the head to the feet) and 48 angulas (one
nyagrodha) in circumference, and whose height measures
7 feet (length of the foot) and 4 elbow lengths and has 32
auspicious features,

Who has no doubts himself and is able to completely dispel

the doubts of others is declared as a Guru by wise men.

NOTE:

The height of the perfect being fit for the role of a Guru is such
that when measured from the tip of the foot to the top of the hair
on the nead, it should equal 96 Angulas, or 8 Vithasthis (length of
the stretched hand from thumb to lttle finger). Half of 96 – 48 is
called Nyagrodha and should be the circumference round the
stomach. Similarly the height should also be equal to 4 times the
length of the elbow to the tip of the stretched fingers on the hand.
It should also be equal to 7 padas or lengths of the feet.
In addition Lakshana texts stipulate that
Pancha-dheergha – 5 should be long – shoulders, eyes, jaws,
knees and nails
Pancha-sookshma – 5 should be fine – skin, hair, fingers, teeth,
and finger joints.
Saptha-raktha – 5 should be red in colour – inner surface of
hands, and lower surface of the feet, tips of the eyes, Thalu
(inside of the mouth at the top), tongue, lower lip, and nails.
Shad-unnatha – 6 should be raised – shoulder, stomach, chest,
nose and forehead and Kaksha
Thri-pruthu – 3 must be broad – forehead, waist and chest
Thrishu Hrssva – 3 must be soft - knee, neck and genitals
Thrishu gambhira – 3 must be deep – voice, mind and navel.
The ideal features are contained in samudrika shasthra and are
indicative of a divine human being.

Sloka (122 – 123)

तस्माद् ब्रह्मा गु रुर्मुख्यः सर्वेषामे व सर्वदा |

अन्ये ऽपि स्वात्मनो मु ख्याः क् रमाद् गु रव ईरिताः || १.१२२||

क् रमाल्लक्षणहीनाश्च लक्षणालक्षणै ः समाः |

मानु षा मध्यमाः सम्यग् दुर्लक्षणयु तः कलिः || १.१२३||

Therefore, Brahma is the main Guru always and for all

(other souls).

Others (Gurus) who are superior to oneself are also

declared to be Gurus successively (according to their
position in gradation). They will have gradually lesser
auspicious features, (compared to Brahma).

The middle class of human beings have both good and bad
lakshanas (features). Kali has only bad features.

NOTE:

All persons who are superior in gradation to oneself are Gurus

(teachers) but all of them are not equal to one another. Tjose who
have greater number of auspicious features will be higher in
ranking. The middle order of humans has mixed features and thus
they can not be Gurus. Kali, the embodiment of evil has only
inauspicious features.
 Those with 32 such features are fit for Brahma/Vayu
With 28 such features are fit for Rudra/Shesha/Garuda
With 24 to 16 such features – they will be gods in different
levels.
With 8 – 16 such features – they will be the famous ascetics
Less than 8 such features – superior human beings/emperors.

In Vishnu Tatvavinirnaya, Acharya madhva describes the special

requirements of a Veda Drashta – who visualises the eternal shruthi texts.
Many such shruthies are known and identified with the names of their
Drashtas (Seers), who should not be mistakenly identified as their
composers. A small section of my notes from the composition is reproduced
herewith:
“Na cha kenachith kruthva veda ithyuktham vedasamam
ParamparAbhAvAth”
“Na cha svayamprathibhathavedairdrushtam avedavAkyam bhavathi
paramparAsiddhavedavAkyAnusarithvAth
vedadrastrUnAm ukthagunavathvAccha theshAm
uktham cha Brahmande:
“Vimshath lakshanathO anUnah thapasvee bahuvedavith
veda ithyeva yam pashyeth sa vedO jnAnadarshanAth – ithi”
.
Shri AnandaTirtha goes on to deny the possibility that an unknown author
could hide his authorship and thus claim that his compositions are
apaurusheya or similar in validity to the vedas. This is because there is no
such traditional belief in such a composition. Shri JayaTirtha elaborates the
point by explaining that the long line of traditional vedic teachers have
always stated that the vedas taught by them was never composed either by
them or even by their teachers, but were apaurusheya compositions. Such a
tradition does not exist for the possible texts produced by authors who are
hiding their authorship. This argument takes care of the premise that all texts
whose authorship is unknown or hidden can have the same status or validity
of the vedas. The possible argument that even the long line of the teachers
and the taught must have an end in the past, corresponding to the veda
Dhrashta (Seer of the veda text), and hence we can not preclude the
 possibility that some other texts could have been added to the vedas by
such persons is next answered by Shri Ananda Tirtha that no such text can
possibly be included for two reasons: The new text must be in accordance
with the texts taught traditionally before and the seers of the vedas must
have certain superlative qualities to be able to realise the veda texts. These
qualities are:
1) Possession of at least 20 auspicious qualities as per the norms laid
down in the science of such qualities (Lakshanas). Thus they should be
equal or superior to the famous ascetics like Saptharshis etc.
2) He should know already a great deal of the vedas.
3) he should be engaged in great penance for the realisation of the
truth.
Shri AnandaTirtha quotes a shloka from Brahmanda Purana, which states
these conditions for any person who has to be a Veda Dhrashta.
Shri JayaTirtha amplifies the points: The difference between
the veda dhrashta and the deceiver who wants to foist his own composition
as a traditional one, whose author is not known is not only in his own
knowledge about the truth but the consistent knowledge in the veda
dhrashta that whatever he has realised is the same as the apaurusheya
veda text known and taught before him. To rule out the slightest doubt in
anybody's mind about the relative dependability of the claim made by both
the extraordinary qualities required to be a veda dhrashta are enumerated.
Further discussion based on Vishnutatvavinirnaya will be given in the nxet posting.