Pramāṇa - 04 (Śabda Pramāṇa)

Introduction

In the previous blogs we have discussed:

Now it's time to discuss the most discussed pramana of all time - Sabda Pramana.

Lakṣaṇam of Śabda Pramāṇa

Babaji: In conventional usage, Sabda means sound, but as pramana it refers to meaningful articulate sound spoken or written by an apta-purusa.

The point of sabda is to produce understanding through uttering words, regarding objects within the range of sensory connection and for those beyond it (such as heaven).

Babaji: In its ultimate sense, the term sabda refers to the power of self-revealing sound, identical to the transcendental reality that it signifies.

It is svatah-pramanya (self-validating), which is free from four inherent human defects (discussed in pramana-01).

Why Do We Need Śabda Pramāṇa?

By tracing the chain of causes in material creation, we can infer that something exists beyond our sense perception, but inference can take us no further. Thus, because the other pramanas (pratyaksha and anumana) are only means of valid knowledge when it comes to empirical reality and not absolute reality, sabda-pramana becomes necessary.

Since:

Direct experience is limited by inherent human defects (discussed before)
Direct experience can't be of the past or future
Direct experience can't discuss matters of reality beyond sense perception

Thus those pramanas (pratyaksha/anumana) which are dependent on direct perception in one way or another are restricted for the domain of transcendence, which is self-illuminating and doesn't depend on any other pramana for its illumination.

Classifications of Śabda

Sabda can be of two kinds:

Paurasya-sabda - that which is experienced here in this world
Apauraseya-sabda - that which is not experienced here in this world

Those who doubt any reality beyond sensory perception reject sabda-pramana, but still they depend on the first kind of sabda-pramana, which is the knowledge imparted by others - e.g., the scientist, teachers, T.V. and so on, which they could never justify by their own sensory experience, but yet they accept it.

Babaji summarizes it beautifully: Those who consider sensory experience superior to sabda tend to forget that we gain most of our knowledge by hearing or reading, not by immediate perception.

Śabda as Vaiduṣa-Pratyakṣa

Sabda can also be categorized as a special kind of pratyaksha called vaidusa-pratyaksha, where "vaidusa" or "trans-egoic perceiver" includes both God and the realized perfected beings.

Thus when sabda is determined as superior to perception, it means superior to avaidusa-pratyaksha or sensory perception, and it specifically relates to the field of the trans-empirical.

The Lakṣaṇa of Veda

For most Vedantins and also Purva-Mimamsa, they equate sabda-pramana = Vedas. And thus we are going to investigate into Vedas (Sabda-pramana).

अपौरूषेयं वाक्यं वेदः। The Veda is that sentence which is not produced by [any] puruṣa.

Vakya not produced by any purusa could mean two things here:

Not by any person - position of Purva-Mimamsa
Not by any conditioned person - position of Uttara-Mimamsa (Vedanta)

According to Vedanta, here the word puruṣa means a conditioned human being; thus Veda is apauruṣeya.

Since Vedas are free from the four defects of human beings, we can access knowledge of absolute reality from them. The Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord at the dawn of creation (SU 6.18). They first manifested within the heart of Brahma (SB 1.1.1), then they were handed down through disciplic succession. Vedas provide both material and spiritual knowledge.

Different Schools and Their Acceptance of Vedas

For most Vedantins, sabda-pramana is of the second kind (apauraseya-sabda/avaidusa-pratyaksha) and they accept Vedas as sabda-pramana.

All the schools of thought under the umbrella of Hinduism accept Vedas as sabda pramana - e.g., Sankhya, Nyaya, Vedanta, Yoga, Mimamsa etc.

Then what is the difference between all these schools?

They accept Vedas as sabda pramana but have their own texts - Nyaya, Sankhya, Yoga etc.
They accept Vedas as sabda pramana and their own texts and interpretation are also dependent on it - Vedanta.

Thus Vedanta in its true meaning not just accepts sabda pramana in the sense of mere acceptance, but also their whole understanding is derived from Vedic testimony, and hence could be shown as the true representative of the Vedas.

Important principle: Sabda can be assisted by other pramanas; however, other pramanas have no power to contradict sabda.

Sabda is testimony of apta-purusa which is accepted as Vedas. Those who reject the Vedas are considered as nastika.

Understanding Śabda in Ultimate Sense

Babaji writes: "In its ultimate sense, the term sabda refers to the power of self-revealing sound, identical to the transcendental reality that it signifies."

"Self-existing and self-revealing sound that is transhuman in origin. It originates from and is identical to the supreme absolute, Bhagavan. It originates from him means that it eternally exists within him as his own self-revealing sound potency."

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why should we accept Sabda as self-validating knowledge?

A: Because true knowledge is self-validating. If it depends on other knowledge, then what will that knowledge depend on and then so on? Thus it is self-validating; otherwise it ends up with the defect of infinite regress. Thus there is no circular objection in it.

Q: But by that logic, anybody can claim anything to be true.

A: No, because its invalidity can be proved.

Q: Okay then, how are other scriptures of other religions not sabda-pramana?

A: Because they are not apauraseya-sabda. They have been authored by a purusa at a particular time, which is evident. This cannot be said about the Vedas.

Q: But names of the authors can be forgotten over time, thus it is not logical to say it is of divine origin.

A: Even today, many families in India know their exact Vedic branch—their śākhā, their lineage, their specific traditions. When engaged in Vedic studies, one recites the names of his branch, his gotra, his pravara, his ṛṣi. This tradition of precise attribution has been maintained for thousands of years.

If the sages who propounded various branches are remembered with such precision, why would the original authors be forgotten? Wouldn't they be the most honored, the most carefully preserved names of all?

On the contrary, from the works of great philosophers like Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, it becomes clear that the Vedas were never considered human compositions. Kumārila lived around the sixth century CE, when Vedic culture still flourished and the guru-śiṣya paramparā was intact. Yet even then, no one claimed authorship of the Vedas.

Even earlier, Śabara Svāmī in the first century CE upheld that the Vedas are apauruṣeya—not created by any person. And centuries before him, Patañjali accepted the same truth.

Independent schools—Kāṇva, Bāṣkala, Śākala—memorized and recited Vedic texts in geographic isolation for centuries. Yet when scholars brought them together, their recitations matched with mathematical precision.

If human editors had composed or tampered with these mantras, such uniformity across hundreds of śākhas would be virtually impossible. Consider how quickly languages change, how oral traditions naturally develop regional variations. The very preservation itself testifies to something beyond ordinary human agency.

If someone claims the Vedas are human compositions, they need to provide evidence. But the historical record shows the opposite—consistent recognition of their non-human origin, no identifiable authors, knowledge that exceeded the capabilities of their supposed time periods.

The burden of proof is actually on those who claim they're human creations. Because through the affirmation of countless realized individuals across millennia, and the absence of any conclusive evidence establishing human origin, it is reasonable to conclude that the Vedas are not of human origin.

When we examine the full body of evidence, the claim that the Vedas are merely human compositions becomes the position requiring extraordinary evidence. How could ancient humans, without modern instruments, encode such precise astronomical knowledge? How could they develop a linguistic system so sophisticated that computer scientists study it for artificial intelligence applications?

These weren't primitive people. They were philosophers, logicians, careful thinkers. This consistent recognition across generations shows that the Vedas were never considered man-made. They were always seen as eternal and revealed—śabda that was not invented, but heard.

It is hence proved that the author of the Vedas is not forgotten because every Vedantin accepts it to be Bhagavan.

Q: This could still just mean they were well-preserved human compositions. How can we be sure they contain genuine knowledge?

A: The Vedas state that water, when sanctified with certain mantras, becomes purifying. Modern science now confirms water's ability to hold and transfer information—its molecular memory, its response to sound vibrations.

The Vedas speak of medicinal properties of cow products, which research now validates. They contain knowledge of astronomy that allowed accurate predictions of eclipses thousands of years before modern calculation. Mathematics that predated Pythagoras. Surgical techniques that anticipated modern medicine.

Yoga, music, drama, dance, algebra, civil engineering—knowledge that preceded its 'modern' discovery by millennia.

The Vedas contain thousands of such verifiable insights, spanning every field of knowledge. The same is true of various herbal formulae prescribed in Ayurveda. These formulae, which are thousands in number, were not arrived at after research in a lab and testing on mice and rabbits.

Even if someone proposes that just as modern science is evolving, the Vedas also evolved over a period of time, then the question arises: why in recorded history have people stopped making further refinements in the Vedas? If the Vedas indeed have a human source, they should have been revised and improved over time, and new, improved versions should be available; but this is not the case. Rather, north or south, east or west, the same standard readings of the Vedas are found, and no older or newer versions are seen anywhere.

Q: So pratyaksha and anumana are not means of valid knowledge?

A: No, they are not means of valid knowledge only in terms of absolute reality, which is beyond their domain.

Q: How are you so sure about a reality beyond?

A: By tracing the chain of causes in material creation, we can infer that something exists beyond our sense perception, nor can inference yield valid knowledge about abhideya, the means of realizing it.

Q: Since Vedas are not human constructs; they are a direct manifestation of the supreme Sri Narayana (vedo narayanah saksat SB 6.1.40), thus it is ontological truth?

A: Yes.

How to Approach the Vedas

Q: How can one approach Veda?

A: By approaching a qualified guru and performing service and study under him.

Babaji writes: To believe one can know reality by studying it objectively is a myth, which was propagated by science and has lost its steam in the field of quantum mechanics.

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: "Sciences are human activities. The assumption that the sciences are uniquely objective not only distorts the public perception of scientists, but affects scientists' perception of themselves. The illusion of objectivity makes scientists prone to deception and self-deception. It works against the noble ideal of seeking truth."

These scholars who don't study it under a guru will readily admit that to understand any complex material subject, one needs the help of experts in that field, but somehow they reject the necessity of a genuine guru for understanding the Vedas, despite the Vedas themselves saying to approach a guru to understand the tattva, which is a prerequisite.

Q: Why is it a prerequisite?

A: To protect the Vedas from insincere persons.

A Beautiful Argument by Babaji

Babaji makes a beautiful argument:

"Can one imagine that in a particular field of science or art, we could reach an apex in knowledge and produce one standard book accepted by all, making all other books in that field obsolete? Is it conceivable that no one would make any further changes or additions to such a book, and that this book would become worshipable for the people interested in that field? The reasonable, unbiased answer is 'no', and yet this is precisely the case with the Vedas, for they are free of defects, having emanated from the perfect source, Bhagavan. And if someone were to reply 'yes,' there would be no basis for debate over the authority of the Vedas."