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.

  • 3
    There are many Hindu scriptures which state that Vedas are authorless. Vedas themselves have mantras that indicate the same. So it is not that Vedas are considered authorless because nobody knows who the authors were. – Rickross Jun 15 at 5:41
  • @Rickross To refute this you have put yourself in the Buddhist shoes. So statements made from authority like 'many Hindu scriptures which state that Vedas are authorless' and 'Vedas themselves have mantras that indicate the same' have no value when arguing with a Buddhist. – sv. Jun 17 at 20:10
  • I could not get it . If Hindus are arguing they will do it using Hindu beliefs and scriptures only. What kind of arguments will satisfy the Buddhists? And what is our loss if they remain unsatisfied? :P – Rickross Jun 19 at 7:09
  • 'What kind of arguments will satisfy the Buddhists?' - that which rely purely on logic but not on any particular scripture. @Rickross – sv. Jun 19 at 15:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .