Which philosophical arguments support claims like

  • The Vedas are the eternal truths of God, or

  • Veda has existed forever and will exist forever?

Which pramāṇas – e.g., pratyakșa, anumāna, śabda – support such type of statement?

See one of the answers to What went wrong in the practise of Hinduism?

  • I find that answer annoying, embarrassing... And disturbing. Because it is near enough to truth that I can't say it's wrong. And it's wrong enough that I am appalled. To be frank my summarily deleted answer is way less contentious and more objective than that answer (or any answer I could write in rebuttal) And any answer I could write would likely get likewise summarily deleted midway through discussion. So this comment must suffice.
    – Rushi
    Commented Aug 7, 2019 at 6:31
  • There is no logical argument for accepting the Vedas as the eternal truths of God. To assert or accept the vedas as the authority in things transcendental, is that which separates different Indian philosophical schools into astika (orthodox) and nastika (heterodox). The eternity of the vedas is established in the rig veda 10.71.3. See Brahma Sutra verse 1.3.28-29 (here - wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras). From these you will see that it is pratyaksa and sabda. Commented Aug 7, 2019 at 6:43
  • @Swami Vishwananda Your answer confirms that „accepting the Vedas as the eternal truths of God“ is a controversial issue in Indian philosophy. You point to important Indian schools (Buddhists, Jains, Lokāyatas) which reject this assessment. I do not understand: How do other Indian schools arrive at the estimation that a property like „being the ethernal truth of God“ can be verified by pratyakşa, i.e. is present before the eyes. Concepts like „God“ or „ethernal“ are big words. And it is controversial whether these concepts have a reference object at all.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Aug 7, 2019 at 21:11
  • @Swami Vishwananda The Brahma Sūtra 1.3.28 simply states (śabda): The world originates from the Vedic word. And this is known by anumāna and pratyakşa. Do you find the subsequent language theory in Saṅkara‘s bhāşya a convincing argument?
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Aug 7, 2019 at 21:11
  • see sankara's commentary on 1.3.28. I included 1.3.28 as sankara's commentary lends itself to a greater understanding of 1.3.29 and the commentary of 1.3.29. Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 9:53


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .