Are there any refutations to this argument put forth by the Buddhist philosophers? Particularly, the one against the authorlessness of Vedas because no one remembers who their authors are?
Criticism of the Veda :— The Mīmāṁsāka maintains that the Veda is eternal. Words, meanings and their relationship are all eternal. The injunctions and the prohibitions of the Veda are all that we need. The Veda has neither a before nor an after; therefore it is authorless and eternal. Dharmakīrti, Shāntarakṣita and Kamalashīla bitterly criticize this view: The Mīmāṁsāka says that ignorance, jealousy, hatred, etc., which are the causes of the unreliability of words are found in persons; words of persons, therefore, are unreliable. The Buddhist retorts that knowledge, non-jealousy non-hatred etc. which are the causes of the reliability of words are found in persons; words of persons, therefore, are reliable. It is only a person who can speak or write or understand words. The Veda itself cannot reveal its meaning. It is indeed a wonder that there are people who can uphold such a clearly absurd view that because we do not remember the authors of the Veda, therefore the Veda is not the creation of persons! Fie on the pitched darkness of ignorance which pervades this world! This view can be valid only for the blind followers who are ignorant of logic. By this logic many other works also whose authors are not known will have to be regarded as authorless. And absolute reliability shall have to be attached to those words of heterodox outsiders, the origin of which cannot be traced, and to those horrible customs of the Mlechchhas or the Parasikas, like marrying one's own mother or daughter, the origin of which is not remembered. Again, if the Mīmāṁsāka thinks it his right to give peculiar meanings to such ordinary words like 'Svarga,' 'Urvashi,' etc. which occur in the Veda, then who can reasonably check us if we proclaim that this sentence of the Veda—'One who desires heaven should perform sacrifice', means that 'One should eat the flesh of a dog' or that 'Buddha is omniscient'? The argument that because some sentences of the Veda are true, therefore the entire Veda is true is clearly wrong because some sentences, even of a trustworthy person, may be wrong while some sentences, even of an untrustworthy person, may be right. It is only the true words of trustworthy persons which do not contradict our experience that should be recognized as the Agama. If the Mīmāṁsāka is really eager to establish the authority of the Veda, he should try to prove that the Veda is the work of some faultless author of supra-normal vision who has risen above all ignorance. Indeed, right words embodying truth and goodness, and emanating from persons highly intelligent and merciful do claim validity.