[Advaita-l] Why the Upaniṣads Are a Pramāṇa?: A vedantic view compatible with science

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

 Namaste Rajaram ji
Thank you for s beautiful and comprehensive post about a very important
aspect of the vedantic tradition viz., the need to show non-conflict with
modern scientific assertions
It’s nice to see you post after a long long time. Back in 2003-4 there was
an extensive discussion on apauruṣeyatva etc in which you had substantively
discussed matters, if I recollect.

Time flies…and the clarity of and assimilation of the truth of śruti, are
the only things that matter, I guess.

Would you say that the references to spatial-temporal empirical entities
including Sarasvati River, various historical kings and places of the
Indian civilization- are also apauruṣeya (albeit anuvāda)?

(I understand there is a view that the mantra saṁhitā is apauruṣeya but not
necessarily everything else that is part of brāhmaṇa - not that such a view
is free of problems).

Om
Raghav



Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
<https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=9d3a686e-218d-4849-8298-b480188dc8ac&af_android_url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail%26listing%3Demail_signature>

On Saturday, October 25, 2025, 6:13 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Abstract

This article examines why the Upaniṣads are regarded within Vedānta as a
pramāṇa—a valid and independent means of knowledge (śabda-pramāṇa)—even in
the light of modern cosmology, biology, and linguistics. Far from
contradicting scientific explanations of the universe or language, the
Upaniṣads occupy a distinct epistemic domain: they reveal the
non-objectifiable reality of the Self (ātman), which cannot be grasped by
perception (pratyakṣa) or inference (anumāna). By exploring the
cosmological and biological evidence for evolution, the linguistic
evolution of Sanskrit, and classical doctrines such as apauruṣeyatva
(non-agency), anuvāda (repetition), and internal coherence, this paper
argues that the Upaniṣads function analogously to
mathematics—self-consistent and irreplaceable in their epistemic scope.

1. Introduction: Knowledge and Pramāṇa

In Indian epistemology, a pramāṇa is a means of reliable knowledge, a
process that leads the mind from doubt to certainty (pramiti). The Mīmāṃsā
and Vedānta traditions recognise six primary pramāṇas: perception
(pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna), presumption
(arthāpatti), non-cognition (anupalabdhi), and verbal testimony (śabda).
Each operates within its own domain of validity. For physical or empirical
truths, pratyakṣa and anumāna suffice; for metaphysical truths beyond
empirical verification, Vedānta asserts the necessity of śabda-pramāṇa—the
Upaniṣads, revealed through the ṛṣis, which disclose what cannot be known
otherwise (Śaṅkara, Brahma-sūtra Bhāṣya 1.1.3).

In contemporary terms, this distinction mirrors the boundary between
empirical science and phenomenological introspection. Science explains
phenomena; the Upaniṣads illuminate the ground of the experiencer. The goal
of this essay is to show that accepting scientific theories—cosmological,
biological, and linguistic—poses no conflict with affirming the Upaniṣads
as an apauruṣeya pramāṇa whose purpose is to reveal the identity of ātman
and Brahman.

2. Cosmology and the Purpose of Sṛṣṭi-Vāda

2.1 Modern Cosmology

Current cosmological consensus holds that the observable universe
originated roughly 13.8 billion years ago in a state of high density and
temperature—the Big Bang—followed by cosmic inflation, baryogenesis,
nucleosynthesis, and stellar evolution (Carroll 2016). Galaxies, stars, and
planetary systems formed through gravitational condensation; chemical
evolution produced the heavy elements necessary for life. These theories
rest on robust empirical evidence: the cosmic microwave background,
galactic redshift, and stellar nucleosynthesis.

2.2 Vedāntic Cosmology as Pedagogy

The Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.1) describes creation as a sequence—“from that
Self, space was born; from space, air; from air, fire; from fire, water;
from water, earth.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.2.3) similarly portrays sat,
pure being, manifesting as the universe. Śaṅkara, in his commentary on
Brahma-sūtra 2.1.33, clarifies that such accounts are not literal
cosmologies but didactic devices intended to teach abheda, the
non-difference between the effect (world) and the cause (Brahman). The
function of sṛṣṭi-vāda is upāsanā—to help the seeker contemplate Īśvara as
both upādāna (material cause) and nimitta (intelligent cause). Creation is
thus a teaching aid, not a temporal process comparable to the Big Bang.

In Vedānta, two orders of reality are distinguished: vyāvahārika
(empirical) and pāramārthika (absolute). Modern cosmology belongs to the
former; the Upaniṣadic sṛṣṭi teachings belong to the latter, revealing that
whatever is empirically observed is ultimately non-different from Brahman.
Hence, scientific cosmology and Vedāntic cosmology do not conflict—they
address different epistemic levels.

3. Biological Evolution and the Limits of Objectivity

3.1 The Scientific Account

Evolutionary biology provides overwhelming evidence that life diversified
through natural selection acting on heritable variation (Darwin 1859;
Dawkins 2009). Fossil records, comparative anatomy, and genomic sequencing
collectively support descent with modification over billions of years. The
biochemical unity of life—from DNA triplet coding to homologous
structures—confirms common ancestry.

3.2 The Vedāntic Position

Vedānta readily accepts empirical facts about the body and its evolution;
these belong to the domain of pratyakṣa and anumāna. What science cannot
access is consciousness itself. Neuroscience correlates brain activity with
cognitive states, yet—as Chalmers (1995) observes—the “hard problem”
remains: why should neural processes yield subjective experience at all?

According to Advaita Vedānta, ātman is the non-objectifiable witness
(sākṣin), distinct from the mind and body, which are themselves products of
material evolution. Since every scientific model treats consciousness as an
object within the field of observation, it can never capture the subject
that knows. Therefore, the knowledge of the Self demands a distinct
pramāṇa: śruti. As Kaṭha Upaniṣad declares, “nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ
… yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ” (1.2.23): the Self is not gained by mere
reasoning but is revealed to the one chosen by It—i.e., through
śruti-pramāṇa.

Thus, while evolutionary biology explains the emergence of sentient
organisms, Vedānta explains the ground of sentience itself. The two are
complementary, not competitive.

4. Śabda-Pramāṇa: The Epistemology of Verbal Revelation

The Mīmāṃsā school defines śabda-pramāṇa as knowledge arising from reliable
verbal testimony. In ordinary life, testimony depends on the
trustworthiness of the speaker; in śruti, the speaker is not human but
apauruṣeya—beyond personal authorship—hence infallible within its domain.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and later Śaṅkara uphold the doctrine of svataḥ-prāmāṇya:
knowledge, by its very nature, reveals both its content and its validity;
error arises only when contradicted by a stronger pramāṇa. Since no other
pramāṇa can access the non-objectifiable Self, the Upaniṣads stand
uncontested in their field.

Śaṅkara emphasizes this independence: “na hi śāstra-janitam jñānam anyat
pramāṇam apekṣate” —knowledge born of scripture does not depend on another
means (Brahma-sūtra Bhāṣya 1.1.3). Thus, the Upaniṣads are epistemically
self-validating, like the axioms of mathematics.

5. The Naturalness of Apauruṣeya Śruti

5.1 Traditional Explanation

The Vedas are said to be apauruṣeya—“not of human origin.” The ṛṣis are
*mantra-draṣṭāraḥ* (seers of mantras), not composers. This ensures the
Veda’s freedom from personal bias or error. The idea is not that the sounds
existed eternally in the ether but that they were discovered when the
seers’ minds became transparent instruments in deep meditation.

5.2 Psychological Correlates

Modern psychology and neuroscience provide analogues to this claim. Studies
on deep meditation (Newberg et al. 2001) and psychedelic-induced
ego-dissolution (Carhart-Harris et al. 2019) reveal states in which the
sense of personal agency disappears, and insights appear to “arrive”
spontaneously. In such a state, cognition seems impersonal, lending
plausibility to the idea that the ṛṣis experienced revelation without
authorship. Thus, apauruṣeyatva need not be interpreted supernaturally; it
can be understood phenomenologically as knowledge arising in a state of
non-agency. Consequently, the Vedas’ apauruṣeyatva is both philosophically
and scientifically intelligible.

6. Linguistic Evolution and the Principle of Anuvāda

6.1 The Scientific View of Linguistic Evolution

Historical linguistics has demonstrated that Sanskrit belongs to the
Indo-European language family, descended from a reconstructed ancestor,
Proto-Indo-European (PIE) (Fortson 2010). The correspondences between
Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and other Indo-European languages follow systematic
phonetic laws—Grimm’s, Verner’s, and Grassmann’s. For instance, PIE *pód-*
yields Sanskrit *pād-*, Greek *poús*, Latin *ped-*, all meaning “foot.”
These regular sound shifts are as lawful as biological mutations, and they
provide strong evidence for common linguistic ancestry.

Sanskrit itself underwent diachronic development. Early Vedic Sanskrit, as
seen in the Ṛg Veda, differs markedly from Classical Sanskrit: it preserves
the injunctive mood, free word order, and older phonology. Between these
stages, several grammarians—Śākaṭāyana, Gārgya, and others—codified
linguistic norms culminating in Pāṇini’sAṣṭādhyāyī (c. 5th century BCE),
which systematised Sanskrit into a perfect generative grammar (Cardona
1997).

6.2 Vedāntic Interpretation: Anuvāda and Arthavāda

How then can the Vedas be timeless if their language shows historical
change and reference to temporal events—such as the Ṛg Veda’s praise of the
Sarasvatī river or references to specific tribes? The Mīmāṃsā solution is
anuvāda: portions of the Veda may repeat or endorse facts known through
other pramāṇas (perception, inference) to contextualise or introduce
injunctions (*vidhi*) or higher teachings. As the Śabara Bhāṣya notes,
anuvāda serves “to connect the known with the yet-to-be-known.”

Thus, when the Veda mentions rivers or rituals, these are
anuvāda—repetition of empirical facts for pedagogical purposes. Their
inclusion does not compromise apauruṣeyatva, since knowledge concerns not
empirical content but the transcendent teaching: the non-duality of Brahman
and ātman. Linguistic evolution therefore does not threaten the sanctity of
the Vedas any more than the evolution of mathematical notation threatens
arithmetic truth.

7. Pramāṇatvam of the Upaniṣads and the Analogy with Mathematics

7.1 Mathematics as a Self-Validating System

Mathematics operates through axioms and logical deduction. Its truths—such
as Euclid’s postulates or Peano’s axioms—are not empirically verified but
internally consistent. Theorems derived from them are universally valid
within the framework. Their certainty arises from coherence and necessity,
not observation.

7.2 The Upaniṣads as an Axiomatic System

Similarly, Vedānta accepts the Upaniṣads as axiomatic revelations.
Statements like “tat tvam asi” (Chāndogya 6.8.7) and “ayam ātmā brahma”
(Māṇḍūkya 1.2) function as foundational axioms. Through śravaṇa
(listening), manana (reasoning), and nididhyāsana (contemplation), the
seeker logically integrates these axioms to dissolve apparent
contradictions between self and world. The resulting vision—non-dual
consciousness—is not a belief but an immediate recognition, verified by
direct experience (anubhüti) within the system.

Śaṅkara compares śruti to a lamp revealing what cannot be seen in darkness.
It does not create a new object; it reveals what is already there but
unnoticed. Likewise, mathematics does not create space; it reveals its
inherent relations. Both are internally coherent, non-empirical, and
universally applicable. Therefore, the Upaniṣads qualify as pramāṇa
precisely because of this internal consistency and irreplaceable epistemic
function.

8. Harmony of Science and Śruti

Modern knowledge—cosmological, biological, and linguistic—extends human
understanding of empirical reality but remains within the domain of
objectifiable phenomena. Vedānta, through śruti-pramāṇa, addresses the
substratum of all phenomena: consciousness. There is thus no conflict, only
difference of scope.

To summarise:

1. Cosmology:The Big Bang and sṛṣṭi-vāda are not rivals. One describes the
empirical unfolding of matter; the other teaches the non-duality of Brahman.
2. Biology: Evolution explains bodies; Vedānta explains the witnessing
consciousness in which all evolution appears.
3. Linguistics: Sanskrit evolved historically but was prevented
from.systemic change through the work.of grammarians; yet the Vedas remain
apauruṣeya because knowledge concerns fundamental truths beyond space and
time. The spacio- temporal elements are anuvāda, repetitions for teaching.
4. Epistemology: The Upaniṣads, like mathematics, are self-consistent and
internally valid, functioning as śabda-pramāṇa for a domain beyond
perception and inference.

Thus, the veracity of scientific theories strengthens rather than weakens
the Vedāntic claim: empirical knowledge delineates the field of the known,
making the need for an independent means of self-knowledge all the more
evident. The *
Upaniṣads stand as that means—timeless, rational, and uniquely positioned
to reveal what all other pramāṇas presuppose: the conscious knower.

---

Bibliography

* Cardona, G. (1997). *Pāṇini: A Survey of Research.* Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
* Carroll, S. (2016). *The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning,
and the Universe Itself.* New York: Dutton.
* Carhart-Harris, R. et al. (2019). “Psychedelics and the Science of
Self-Experience.” *Neuroscience of Consciousness.*
* Chalmers, D. (1995). “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.”
*Journal of Consciousness Studies* 2 (3): 200–219.
* Darwin, C. (1859). *On the Origin of Species.* London: John Murray.
* Dawkins, R. (2009). *The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for
Evolution.* London: Bantam..
* Fortson, B. (2010). *Indo-European Language and Culture.* Oxford:
Blackwell.
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org