Intro
Scholars have been selective about deciding whether any book’s statement can be taken as authoritative.
- Patanjali (in पस्पशाह्निकम् , महाभाष्यम् ) cautions “क्व पुनरिदं पठितम् ? भ्राजा नाम श्लोकाः । किंच भोः श्लोका अपि प्रमाणम् ? किंचातः ? यदि प्रमाणम् , अयमपि प्रमाणम् भवितुम् अर्हति ….. प्रमत्तगीत एष तत्रभवतः । यस्तु अप्रमत्तगीतः तत्प्रमाणम् ।”
Bases of authority
Authorship claims
- Historical claims about authorship is used by some traditions, in order to nominally claim some form of divine origin and higher authority in case of disputes. This is amore general phenomenon, called pseudepigrapha.
- Eg. Jīva Gosvāmin argues in his Tattvasandarbha that Vyāsa’s insight or samādhi is the source of the Bhāgavata’s teachings, and that his authorship – at a particular time and location in history – is what gives the śāstra its authority over all other Purāṇic, Upaniṣadic and Vedic śāstras (Dāsa 1995). [Jonathan B. Edelmann]
- This was, rather, an excellent way to neutralize “argument from authority” - since every view and its opposite ended up claiming divine origins.
- Compare with Pseudo-Aristotle among the greeks.
Discernment
If a work is cited within a few generations (not centuries) of the supposed composition, the authoriship is more credible; not otherwise.
If a work contradicts another by the same author, or if it has a very different style, it’s supposed authorship is suspect.
Vedic basis/ parity
- Details here.
- Some works base their authoritativeness on being extracted from or based on (extinct) veda shaakhaa-s.
- Some pAncharAtrika-s claim pedegree from ekAyana-veda [LT_U].
Effort in proving veda-compatibility
Requirement for effort-fully establishing acceptability of other shAstra-s and Agama-s
आप्तानाम् आर्याणाम् शिष्टानाम् एव सम्मतिः शास्त्राणाम् अपि प्रामाण्यं सम्पादयति (नैय्यायिकाः वेदविषये ऽप्येवं वदन्ति, तत्र ममाऽपि सम्मतिः)। शिष्टैर् अन्यागमानां प्रामाण्यं तु प्रयत्नेन सम्पादनीयम् - “म्लेच्छग्रन्था अपि वेदवत् प्रामाणिका” इतिवद् घोषणमात्रेण नालम् इति तु स्थितिः।
- यामुनाचार्येण पाञ्चरात्रागमेषु तथा चिकीर्षता “ऽऽगमप्रामाण्यम्” नाम ग्रन्थो रचितः परमतावलम्बिनां वैदिकानाम् आक्षेपाणां निरसनार्थम्।
- द्रविडभाषानिबद्ध-दिव्यप्रबन्धानाम् वेदान्तसम्मतिर् वेदाविरोधत्वञ्च श्रीवैष्णवाचार्यैः श्रमेण दर्शितम्।
Acceptance by vaidika shiShTa-s
there is a direct line from “religions evolve over time and we should accept it” to “let us worship toilets and trans folx.”
this is already something addressed a dozen times over by the purva mimamsakas and even the dharmashastrabhashyakars. you will find the same objections discussed in the nyayamanjari as well.
the criteria is the action of the people immersed in the veda. because venkata and krishna were declared gods by people who were the direct descendants of rigvedic aryans, who spoke sanskrit natively, and who learned the entire shrauta corpus from birth, hence being immersed completely in the vedas.
the collective actions of the aryan wise decide the course of our religion’s evolution. and the wise are people learned in the veda, who can recite the veda and who perform shrauta yajnas to maintain their nitya naimittika karmas.
Challenges to authority claims
Interpolation
See here
moha-shAstra
पाद्मपुराणे २३६
दैत्यानां नाशनार्थाय विष्णुना बुद्धरूपिणा
बौद्धशास्त्रमसत्प्रोक्तं नग्ननीलपटादिकम् ६
मायावादमसच्छास्त्रं प्रच्छन्नं बद्ध उच्यते
मयैव कथितं देवि कलौ ब्राह्मणरूपिणा ७
अपार्थं श्रुतिवाक्यानां दर्शयन्लोकगर्हितम्
स्वकर्म्मरूपं त्याज्यत्वमत्रैव प्रतिपाद्यते ८
सर्वकर्म्मपरिभ्रष्टैर्वैधर्म्मत्वं तदुच्यते
परेशजीवपारैक्यं मया तु प्रतिपाद्यते ९
ब्रह्मणोस्य स्वयं रूपं निर्गुणं वक्ष्यते मया
सर्वस्य जगतोऽप्यत्र मोहनार्थं कलौ युगे १०
advaitins consider the Padma Purana verse equating Mayavada and crypto-Buddhism as an interpolation.
विष्णोर्हि वैष्णवं तद्वत् तथा भागवतं तथा। नारदीय पुराणं च गारुडं वैष्णवं विदुः॥ … वैष्णवानि च चत्वारि तामसानि मुनीश्वराः। क्षत्रियाणां श्रुता धर्माः तेषु तद्देवता हरिः॥
From the Skanda Purāṇa, a classification of the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇāḥ in direct opposition to the Padma.
- varAha-purANa calling rudra “moha” and generating moha-shAstra-s, and trying to rescue the confused with nihshvAsa-samhitA WP17.
- jayadratha the kAshmIra describing bauddha anti-astika tropes as confusion emerging out of a ploy by bRhaspati. [TW16]
- the shivapurANa posits that viShNu incarnated as tathAgata or arihant to produce fake shAstra-s. [TW16]
Author’s weaknesses
With pauruSheya vAkya-s, it becomes important to know the qualities and circumstances of the person producing them.
- mAdhva account of madhva’s sannyAsa casting the shAnkara tradition as Asurika is found in 7-9 sargas of nArAyaNa paNDitarAja’s maNimanjari [pdf].
- The bauddha-taint
- pracChanna-bauddhatA charge by bhAskara and rAmAnuja BVP17.
Contests based on language
- kumarIla-bhaTTa notes in a lengthy pUrvapakSa claim (via the voice of his “opponent”) that the authors of the kalpa texts made many grammatical errors!
Examples
- Various primary texts insult or controvert certain other texts (and vice-versa).
- For examples of bickering between brAhmaNas of various shAkhA-s, see veda page.
- Certain purANa-s insult certain Agama-s.
- See kUrma-purANa quote below.
- Within vaiShNava-Agama-s
- pAncharAtra and vaikhAnasa texts appear to challenge each other.
Interesting notes
- Incorporation of oShadhi-based-shAmanism - MT.