Authority contests

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.

Vedic basis

  • Some works base their authoritativeness on being extracted from or based on (extinct) veda shaakhaa-s.
    • pAncharAtrika-s claim pedegree from ekAyana-veda [LT_U].

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

  • Ancient observations

    • A position adopted by the likes of madhvAcArya is that many works (especially itihAsa-s and purANa-s) contains interpolations, deletions and corruptions. [MTN 2.3]
    • vedAntadeshika pointed out that some use fabricated texts, ascribing them to vyAsa.

  • Motivation

    • Sometimes, marginal comments may come to be inserted into the main text when the manuscript is copied.

  • bhaviShyapurANa

    • “Many parts of Bhavishya purana are original. Some chapter were added in time of Akbar to show him reincarnation of Prithviraj Chauhan. 2 chapters were added by either William Jones or Eric Pargiter to show that British are descendants of Hanuman who were blessed by Bhagvan Ram to rule India. William Jones also removed some key verses of puranas.”

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.

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.

Later harmonization

  • By the nahi-nindA nyAya, scholars (LT_U) have often understood these contesting statements as merely advertising their own exaltedness - given the mutual complementarity (besides competitiveness) of the relationship between such texts and traditions.
  • Consider the analogous role of myths showing conflicts among the deva-s.
  • Even the mutual bickering among brAhmaNa-s of veda shAkhA-s was harmonized in this way by the sUtra period.

Hierarchy

“इतिहासपुराणञ् च” TB.3.12.8.2a., “इतिहास-पुराणाभ्यां वेदान् समुपबृंहयेद्” (महाभारतम्) इत्यत्र +इतास-पूर्वनिपातेन व्याकरणोक्तरीत्या +इतिहास-प्रमाणतरत्वम् उच्यते श्रीवैष्णवादिभिः।
तत्रापि रामायणं प्रधानम् मन्यन्ते। माध्वास् तु भारतम्।
तेन रामायणाख्यानान्तराणि पुराणपदम् आप्तानि वाल्मिकिकृतेर् अपेक्षया ऽल्पतराणि।

पुराणेषु पुनस् तारतम्यं स्वतः पुराणैर् एवोच्यते ।
तत्र हि तामस-राजस-सात्त्विक-भेदेन ग्राह्याग्राह्यतक्ता।
पुनस् तत्रापि सात्त्विकेषु तारतम्यं कथ्यते।
यथा विष्णुपुराणं पुराणरत्नम् इति वदन्ति श्रीवैष्णवाः - कस्यचन देवताविशेषस्य स्तुत्यर्थम् अन्तरा साधारण-पक्षपातरहित-प्रश्नैर् उपक्रमात्।
एवम् भागवतम् प्रधानम् मन्यन्ते गौडीयाः - ततो ब्रह्मसूत्र-पुराणान्तर-कृतो व्यासस्य तृप्तेः।

Interesting notes

  • Incorporation of oShadhi-based-shAmanism - MT.