Nyāya view on validity of Veda

Nyāya says that the validity of a statement depends upon the validity of the speaker. If the speaker is free from defects and faults then only a sentence uttered by him can be accepted as reliable. God who is omniscient and all–powerful is the speaker of the Veda. So there cannot be any doubt regarding the validity of the statements present in the Veda. But the Mīmāṃsaka argues that the validity of the Veda does not depend upon the validity of a speaker because the Veda has no speaker and it is not connected with any person. In the case of ordinary statements which are made by a particular person there may be a doubt regarding validity. It may be doubted if the speaker is reliable or not. If the person commits some error his statement will become incorrect and it will not be valid. But in the case of the Veda there is at all no speaker. The possibility of an error coming into the statement of the Veda does not arise. Thus the Veda will be intrinsically valid. So it will naturally be accepted as free from errors and people will follow its instructions and the Vedic rites will be performed.^[1]

To this Udayana says that the theory that knowledge is intrinsically valid is wrong. The validity of every kind of knowledge is to be established by some additional factor. The causes which produce the knowledge do not also produce validity in the knowledge. In the case of verbal testimony also there should be some additional factor. This factor is technically called guṇa. In the case of verbal testimony it is the right understanding on the part of the speaker about the meaning of the sentence uttered by him. So there must be a speaker of the Veda who makes the statements, having a perfect knowledge about even extraordinary objects like apūrva, svarga etc. This speaker is none other than god. People will then follow the Vedic instruction without any hesitation.^[2]

As against this, the Mīmāṃsaka may contend that the Nyāya argument may be applicable to ordinary statements made by ordinary persons. An ordinary person may commit mistakes and his statements may not be true. But the statements of the Veda which are without a speaker become free from falsehood by themselves, because there is naturally no question of error. Udayana finds fault with this position also. He says that this world comes into being again and again and is destroyed again and again. There is a continuous process of creation (sarga) and destruction (pralaya). At the time of final destruction the Veda also is destroyed. So when a new creation will start there will be no Veda and no performance of any Vedic rite. But if god is admitted as the speaker of the Veda this problem will not occur. God is permanent and omniscient and he can always remember the Veda in its exact form. When the new creation starts he utters the Veda once again for the benefit of mankind. Thus the Vedic tradition continues through creations and destructions. Of course, the Mīmāṃsaka may claim that sound (śabda) is eternal. So the Veda also is eternal. Thus in the state of final destruction even the Veda is not destroyed. It does not change and remains as before. So god is not necessary for repeating the Veda in the new creation. Udayana points out that this position is untenable. Sound can never be eternal. It is proved by direct experience that sound is produced and destroyed. We say, for example, “there arose a great noise” and again, “the noise has stopped”. We also say that a certain word has been uttered or produced and it is destroyed or not heard any more. So the Veda also is destroyed and for its propagation again God is necessary.^[3]