Sūtra 1.1.3 (Authority of the Veda)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 1.1.3:

तद्वचनादाम्नायस्य प्रामाण्यम् ॥ १.१.३ ॥

tadvacanādāmnāyasya prāmāṇyam || 1.1.3 ||

tad-vacanāt—being His Word or declaration, or its (of dharma) exposition; āmnāyasya—of the Veda; prāmāṇyam—authoritativeness.

3. The authoritativeness of the Veda (arises from its) being the Word of God [or being an exposition of dharma].

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)

It may be objected, “Well, the Veda is the authority for this that dharma characterised by nivṛtti is the source of the Supreme Good by means of the knowledge of the essence or reality. But we are doubtful about the authoritativeness of the Veda itself, on account of the faults of falsity, contradiction, and repetition. Falsity is shown by the nonproduction of the son, even after the sacrifice for a son has been performed. The homa (oblation to fire) after sun-rise, etc., actually prescribed in the ordinances ‘He offers oblation unto fire after sunrise, he offers oblation unto fire before runrise, he oilers oblation unto fire at a belated hour,’ is counteracted by such tjxts as ‘Śyāva [Śyama?] (a dog of Yama) eats up the oblation of him who offers oblation unto fire alter sunrise, Śavala (the other dog of Yama) eats up the oblation of him who offers oblation unto fire before sunrise, Śyava and Śavala eat up the oblation of him who offers oblation unto fire at a belated hour,’ etc. And repetition surely appears from the mention of the thrice recital of the first and the last Sāmidheni (the Rik III. 27. 1-11. directed to kindle fire) in ‘He will recite the first for three times, he will recite the last for three times.’ Beside there is nothing to establish the authoritativeness of the Veda. Its eternality being uncertain, its eternal freedom from defect also becomes doubtful. On the other hand, if it is the product of a human brain, then by the possibility of mistake, oversight, uncertainty, want of skill in the author, etc., its characteristic of being the infallible testimony of a great and good (āpta) man, certainly becomes doubtful. Thus there is no Supreme Good, nor is knowledge of reality its means, nor again is dharma. Thus all this remains uncertain.”

To meet this objection he says:

‘Tat’ alludes to God whose existence is well-known, although the word does not appear in the context; as in the aphorism of Gautama, “That is unauthoritative on account of the faults of falsity, contradiction, and repetition,” the Veda is alluded to by the word ‘tat,’ although it does not appear in the context. Thus ‘tadvacanāt,’ means being the composition of Him, Īśvara; ‘āmnāyasya,’ of the Veda; ‘prāmāṇya.’ Or,’ ‘tat’ refers to dharma only which is close by i. e., in the context. Thus, of dharma; ‘vacanāt,’ being the exposition; āmnāyasya, of the Veda; ‘prāmāṇya;’ since that statement is really proof which establishes something which is authoritative. God and the quality of His being an āpta (i.e., a great and good person) will be established later on.

Now, with reference to what has been said, namely, “on account of the faults of falsity, contradiction, and repetition,” there in the case of falsity, the explanation lies in the supposition of producing result in another existence or the supposition of defect in the act, the agent, and the instrument, since there is the rule that the result necessarily follows from an act, complete in all its parts, prescribed in the Veda. Moreover, it is not the case that the result must appear in this and only this life, as in the case of Kārīrī (i.e., sacrifice for rain.) There the occupation is that of one who desires a revival of crops which are getting dry. In the case of the sacrifice for a soil, the occupation is that of one who desires a son only. This is the difference. There is also no contradiction, because the condemnatory passages such as “Śyāva eats up his oblations,” etc., have reference only to cases where after having particularly vowed oblations after sunrise, etc., one performs such homas at other times. Nor is there the fault of repetition, because the repetition has this justification that eleven mantras for kindling fire having been as a matter of fact recited, fifteen such mantras as required by the text, “By the means of the fifteen wordthunders he opposed that enemy who is here,” cannot be obtained without reciting the first and the last mantra for three times each.—3.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

(English extracts of Jayanārāyaṇa Tarkapañcānana’s Vivṛti or ‘gloss’ called the Kaṇādasūtravivṛti from the 17th century)

Or here the word ‘ tat ’ itself denotes Īśvara, on the strength of the saying : “Om, Tat, Sat—this has been remembered to be the three-fold reference to Brahman.”