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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Dear Raghav, indeed, time flies. The entire corpus of shruti is apaurusheya
because there is no sense of agency for the ṛṣis. The reference to
Saraswati etc., could be seen as an anuvāda of what's also known through
pratyakṣa and anumāna.

Best regards,
Rajaram Venkataramani
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, 15:31 raghavkumar00 at gmail.com, <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Rajaram ji
> Thank you for s beautiful and comprehensive post. 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.
>
> You have dealt authentically with a very important aspect of the vedantic
> tradition viz., the need to show non-conflict with modern scientific
> assertions (where applicable) or demonstrate the error in scientific
> overreach (as when Consciousness is dismissed as an emergent phenomenon).
>
> Would you suggest that only the mantra saṁhita is apauruṣeya while the
> Saraswati river etc are no
>
> 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
>
>