Short answer
Human poets, by the hymns' own account. The Rig Veda's poets say they "fashioned" their hymns, as a craftsman makes a chariot. They call their hymns "new", give their own names, and speak of seers "old and recent". One poet says a king paid him in cows and chariots. Later schools called the Veda authorless, but they do not agree on where it came from. Which books count is not settled either. Hindus rank the Veda highest, yet they differ on which Upanishads (the philosophical texts at the end of the Veda) belong to it. The epics and Puranas are called the "Fifth Veda". The Qur'an speaks of itself the opposite way. It presents itself as God's (﷾) speech from start to finish. It tells the Prophet (ﷺ) what to say and warns him never to invent a word. It is one book, the same for every Muslim.
Full explanation
The Hindu teaching: the Veda is not of human making
Hindu teachers answer that the Veda is apaurusheya (not made by any person). The rishis, the seers, did not compose the hymns; they saw them. The Nirukta, an ancient glossary of Vedic words, says a seer is so called "from his having vision". It adds that the self-born Brahma manifested himself to the seers. Shankara, a teacher of Vedanta (the school built on the Upanishads) in about the eighth century, holds the Veda eternal. He cites the hymn in which Speech was found dwelling in the rishis. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says the Rig Veda and the others were "breathed forth" from the great Being. The hymn of the cosmic Man says the hymns and chants were born from the first sacrifice. The law book of Manu speaks of two sources, the revealed Veda (shruti, what was heard) and the law books (smriti, what was remembered). It says these two "must not be called into question in any matter". On this view, naming a rishi is like naming a prophet: he received the words; he did not make them.
“A seer is (so called) from his having vision. 'He saw the hymns,' says Aupamanyava. It is known: because the self-born Brahma manifested himself to them while practising austerities, they became seers; that is the characteristic of the seers.”
“As the eternity of the Veda is founded on the absence of the remembrance of an agent only, a doubt with regard to it had been raised owing to the doctrine that the gods and other individuals have sprung from it. That doubt has been refuted in the preceding Sûtra.—The present Sûtra now confirms the, already established, eternity of the Veda. The eternity of the word of the Veda has to be assumed for this very reason, that the world with its definite (eternal) species, such as gods and so on, originates from it.—A mantra also ('By means of the sacrifice they followed the trace of speech; they found it dwelling in the rishis,' Rig-veda Samh. X, 71, 3) shows that the speech found (by the rishis) was permanent.”
“As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of a lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus, verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa (legends), Purâna (cosmogonies), Vidyâ (knowledge), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (prose rules), Anuvyâkhyânas (glosses), Vyâkhyânas (commentaries). From him alone all these were breathed forth.”
“From that great general sacrifice Ṛichas and Sâma-hymns were born: Therefrom were spells and charms produced; the Yajus had its birth from it.”
“But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.”
Muir notes that the hymns of the Rig Veda and the other Vedas are all set down in the Anukramanis, the traditional indexes, as uttered by particular rishis, the rishis being defined there as "those whose words the hymns were" (yasya vakyam sa rishih). The orthodox answer, he writes, is "the well-known assertion of the orthodox Indian writers that the rishis did not compose, but only saw and afterwards repeated the hymns", which had pre-existed from eternity. He quotes Madhava's commentary on the Taittiriya Sanhita for the claim that "no human author of the Veda has ever been perceived".
The hymns say they were made
The hymns themselves tell a different story. Their poets say, again and again, that they made them. "Gotama's son Nodhas hath fashioned this new prayer", one hymn ends. Another poet says, "I with my lips have fashioned for this Hero words never matched". A singer says he made his hymn as "a skilled craftsman makes a car". Another hymn says men "have formed for thee this song", as a craftsman fashions a chariot. The Sanskrit verb in several of these lines (taksh-) is the carpenter's word for shaping wood. The hymns call themselves new: "For thee a new hymn, Lord of Bays, is fashioned"; "I have begotten this new hymn for Agni". The historian of Sanskrit literature A. A. Macdonell grants that the gods are said in a general way to give seers the gift of song. But he concludes that "of the later doctrine of revelation the Rigvedic poets know nothing". And a poet who is inspired and then shapes his own words is still their author.
“O mighty Indra, Gotama's son Nodhas hath fashioned this new prayer to thee Eternal, Sure leader, yoker of the Tawny Coursers. May he, enriched with prayer, come soon and early.”
“I with my lips have fashioned for this Hero words never matched, most plentiful and auspicious, For him the Ancient, Great, Strong, Energetic, the very mighty Wielder of the Thunder.”
“As a skilled craftsman makes a car, a singer I, Mighty One! this hymn for thee have fashioned. If thou, O Agni, God, accept it gladly, may we obtain thereby the heavenly Waters.”
“Eager for riches, men have formed for thee this song, like as a skilful craftsman fashioneth a car, so have they wrought thee to their bliss; Adorning thee, O Singer, like a generous steed for deeds of might, Yea, like a steed to show his strength and win the prize, that he may bear each prize away.”
“Now, Indra! lauded, glorified with praises, let wealth swell high like rivers for the singer. For thee a new hymn, Lord of Bays, is fashioned. May we, car-borne, through song be victors ever.”
“I have begotten this new hymn for Agni, Falcon of the sky: Will he not give us of his wealth?”
Writes that the hymns vary much in merit, as is to be expected in the productions of many poets extending over some centuries; that the poet usually compares his work to a car wrought and put together by a deft craftsman; that one Rishi likens his prayers to well-woven garments and another adorns his song like a bride; and that, although various gods are in a general way said to have granted seers the gift of song, "of the later doctrine of revelation the Rigvedic poets know nothing."
Old seers, new seers, and a king who paid
The hymns also know that hymn-making had a history. The second verse of the whole Rig Veda praises Agni "by living as by ancient seers". Griffith notes that this "indicates the existence of earlier hymns". Sayana, a commentator of the 14th century, explained the living seers as "us of the present day". Another hymn speaks of "all Ṛishis, Indra, old and recent, who have engendered hymns". A poet addresses himself by name, "Kaṣyapa, Ṛishi", and speaks of the lauds of "hymn-composers", in Sanskrit makers of mantras. Most concrete of all, a poet in a hymn on King Sudas's wars moves round the altar "earning Paijavana's reward". He names it: "Two hundred cows from Devavân's descendant, two chariots from Sudâs with mares to draw them". Griffith marks this as the start of the praise of the prince's liberality. Some hold that such gift-verses were added later. Even so, human hands placed them in the text that is recited as shruti. J. Muir, a 19th-century Scottish scholar of Sanskrit who collected dozens of such passages, drew the conclusion. Jaimini, founder of the Mimamsa school, had asserted that only eternal things are named in the Veda. The hymns' mention of older and newer seers, Muir wrote, "refutes, by the testimony of the Veda itself, the assertion of Jaimini".
“Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers: He shall bring hitherward the Gods.”
“Among all Ṛishis, Indra, old and recent, who have engendered hymns as sacred singers, Even with us be thine auspicious friendships. Ye Gods, preserve us evermore with blessings.”
“Kaṣyapa, Ṛishi, lifting up thy voice with hymn-composers' lauds, Pay reverence to King Soma born the Sovran Ruler of the plants. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.”
“Priest-like, with praise, I move around the altar, earning Paijavana's reward, O Agni, Two hundred cows from Devavân's descendant, two chariots from Sudâs with mares to draw them.”
“The following passages from the Rig-veda either expressly distinguish between contemporary rishis and those of a more ancient date, or, at any rate, make reference to the one or the other class. This recognition of a succession of rishis constitutes one of the historical elements in the Veda. It is an acknowledgment on the part of the rishis themselves that numerous persons had existed, and events occurred, anterior to their own age, and, consequently, in time; and it therefore refutes, by the testimony of the Veda itself, the assertion of Jaimini (above, pp. 77 ff.) that none but eternally pre-existing objects are mentioned in that book.”
The schools do not agree where the Veda came from
"Authorless" is the teaching of particular schools, and they do not agree with one another. Muir sets out their grounds. The Purva Mimamsa says the Veda's words are eternal, so the Veda has no author at all. Sayana calls it eternal only in a qualified sense, having sprung from Brahma at the beginning of creation. The Vedanta calls it eternal yet names Brahman as its source. The Nyaya Sutras rest its authority on its having come from competent persons. The Vaiseshika school and Udayana's Kusumanjali say its author is God. These arguments, Muir writes, are "sometimes in direct opposition to each other". Shankara grants that the Veda's eternity had been "founded on the absence of the remembrance of an agent only". He adds that the world itself comes forth from its words. But the hymns do remember their makers: Nodhas, Kaṣyapa, and the poet whom Sudas paid. The tradition's own indexes, the Anukramanis, define a rishi as the one "whose words the hymns were". In these hymns the poet's "I" is his own; nothing in them frames it as a god's report of his words.
Muir sums up the grounds on which the Indian schools rested the Veda's authority. The Veda is said to shine by its own light; it is said to have had no human author, since none is remembered (Madhava); the Purva Mimamsa adds that its words are eternal, and so the Veda is eternal. Sayana and the commentator on the Taittiriya Sanhita call it eternal only in a qualified sense, having sprung from Brahma at the beginning of creation. The Vedanta speaks of its eternity yet names Brahman as its source. The Nyaya Sutras rest its authority on its having come from competent persons, and the Vaiseshika school and Udayana's Kusumanjali derive its infallibility from the omniscience of its author, who is God; the Sankhya Sutras deny that it came from the conscious effort of any divine being. These arguments, Muir writes, "are sometimes in direct opposition to each other in their leading principles".
“As the eternity of the Veda is founded on the absence of the remembrance of an agent only, a doubt with regard to it had been raised owing to the doctrine that the gods and other individuals have sprung from it. That doubt has been refuted in the preceding Sûtra.—The present Sûtra now confirms the, already established, eternity of the Veda. The eternity of the word of the Veda has to be assumed for this very reason, that the world with its definite (eternal) species, such as gods and so on, originates from it.—A mantra also ('By means of the sacrifice they followed the trace of speech; they found it dwelling in the rishis,' Rig-veda Samh. X, 71, 3) shows that the speech found (by the rishis) was permanent.”
Muir notes that the hymns of the Rig Veda and the other Vedas are all set down in the Anukramanis, the traditional indexes, as uttered by particular rishis, the rishis being defined there as "those whose words the hymns were" (yasya vakyam sa rishih). The orthodox answer, he writes, is "the well-known assertion of the orthodox Indian writers that the rishis did not compose, but only saw and afterwards repeated the hymns", which had pre-existed from eternity. He quotes Madhava's commentary on the Taittiriya Sanhita for the claim that "no human author of the Veda has ever been perceived".
“O mighty Indra, Gotama's son Nodhas hath fashioned this new prayer to thee Eternal, Sure leader, yoker of the Tawny Coursers. May he, enriched with prayer, come soon and early.”
“Kaṣyapa, Ṛishi, lifting up thy voice with hymn-composers' lauds, Pay reverence to King Soma born the Sovran Ruler of the plants. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.”
“Priest-like, with praise, I move around the altar, earning Paijavana's reward, O Agni, Two hundred cows from Devavân's descendant, two chariots from Sudâs with mares to draw them.”
| Who | What they say |
|---|---|
| The hymns' own poets | They say they fashioned their hymns, as a craftsman makes a chariot |
| Purva Mimamsa | Its words are eternal, so it has no author |
| Sayana | Eternal only in a qualified sense, from Brahma at creation |
| Vedanta | Eternal, yet with Brahman as its source |
| Nyaya Sutras | Its authority rests on its coming from competent persons |
| Vaiseshika and Udayana | Its author is Ishvara, the Lord |
Which books count: the Veda first, but no agreed list
Every orthodox school ranks the Veda (shruti) highest. Manu says the Veda and the law books "must not be called into question in any matter". But no one list settles which texts belong to it. The Muktika Upanishad is a late Upanishad that lists the Upanishads. It counts 21 branches of the Rig Veda, 109 of the Yajur, 1,000 of the Sama and 50 of the Atharva. Rama tells Hanuman that each branch has "one Upanishad". That makes 1,180, yet he names only 108, so by its own count most are not on its list. The Allopanishad, apparently written in Akbar's time, presents itself as an Upanishad of the Atharva Veda. The historian Charles Eliot says it "can hardly be described as other than a forgery". Yet he cites a library catalogue of 1908, which states that Brahmans in the north of India recite it. The Chandogya Upanishad, itself shruti, lists "the Itihâsa-purâna" "as the fifth" after the four Vedas. Other books claim the Veda's rank for themselves. The Bhagavata calls "the Itihasas and the Purānas" "the Fifth Veda". The Mahabharata says the gods weighed it in a balance, and it outweighed "the four Vedas with their mysteries". In 1966 India's Supreme Court said Hindu religion is hard even to define. It adopted Tilak's working formula, which begins "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence" but names no list of books.
“But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.”
Rama tells Hanuman that the Rig Veda has 21 branches, the Yajur Veda 109, the Sama Veda 1,000 and the Atharva Veda 50, and that in each branch there is one Upanishad (1,180 in all by that count). He then tells him to study the Mandukya alone for release, or else 10, or 32, or the 108 Upanishads, whose names he lists.
Writes that the Allopanishad, or Allah Upanishad, appears to have been written in connection with the Emperor Akbar's new creed; that it purports to be an Upanishad of the Atharva Veda and can hardly be described as other than a forgery; and that it declares the Allah of "Muhammad Akbar" to be the God of gods and identifies him with Mitra, Varuna, the sun, moon, water and Indra. In a footnote he cites Schrader's Catalogue of the Adyar Library (1908), which states that in the north of India the Allopanishad is recited by Brahmans at the Vasantotsava and on other occasions.
“Nârada said: 'I know the Rig-veda, Sir, the Yagur-veda, the Sâma-veda, as the fourth the Âtharvana, as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna (the Bhârata);”
“Four Vedas,—the Righ, the Yajus, the Sāman, and the Atharvan, were separated; the Itihasas and the Purānas, being designated as the Fifth Veda.”
“In former days, having placed the five Vedas on one side and the Bharata on the other, these were weighed in the balance by the celestials assembled for that purpose. And as the latter weighed heavier than the four Vedas with their mysteries, from that period it hath been called in the world Mahabharata (the great Bharata); for it being esteemed superior both in substance and gravity of import is denominated Mahabharata from such substance and gravity of import.”
In a case on whether the Swaminarayan sect is a religion separate from Hinduism, a five-judge bench (the judgment by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar) said that Hindu religion is hard to define: unlike other religions it does not claim any one prophet, does not worship any one God and does not hold any one dogma, and it may broadly be described as a way of life. It named as the first basic concept of Hindu thought the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters, and it adopted as fairly adequate and satisfactory the working formula of B. G. Tilak: "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse and realisation of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion". The Court held that the Swaminarayan followers are Hindus.
What the Qur'an says about its own making
The Qur'an says the opposite of what the hymns say about themselves. It denies that it is the word of a poet, and calls itself "a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds". It presents itself as God's (﷾) speech from start to finish, and God (﷾) tells the Prophet (ﷺ) what to "Say". It threatens the Prophet (ﷺ) himself if he were to "invent any sayings in Our name". When his people asked him to change it, he was told to answer: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it". He did not speak "of (his own) Desire", and before it came he could not recite a book. The Qur'an then challenges anyone who doubts it to "produce a Sura like thereunto". It is one book of 114 surahs, the same for every Muslim, and God (﷾) has promised to guard it. After the Prophet's (ﷺ) death, the Companions gathered it into one volume. They collected what had been written down and learned by heart; they did not compose it.
“It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive. (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.”
“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”
“And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).”
“But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: "Bring us a reading other than this, or change this," Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come)."”
“Say: "If Allah had so willed, I should not have rehearsed it to you, nor would He have made it known to you. A whole life-time before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?"”
“Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:”
“And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.”
“And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.”
“Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"”
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
Zayd ibn Thabit reports that after many who knew the Qur'an by heart were killed at Yamama, Abu Bakr asked him to gather the Qur'an into one volume, reminding him that he used to write down the revelation for the Messenger of Allah. Zayd collected it from written pieces and from the memories of men, and the finished copy passed from Abu Bakr to Umar and then to Hafsa.
Anas reports that Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, alarmed at how the soldiers of Syria and Iraq differed in reciting the Qur'an, urged Uthman to save the community before it differed over its Book as the Jews and Christians had. Uthman borrowed the collected sheets kept by Hafsa, had Zayd ibn Thabit and three men of Quraysh copy them, telling the three that wherever they differed with Zayd they should write in the dialect of Quraysh, in which the Qur'an was revealed, returned the sheets to her, sent a copy to every province, and ordered all other written Qur'anic material to be burned.
The replies, answered
Nirukta 2.11 — chapter 2, section 11
“A seer is (so called) from his having vision. 'He saw the hymns,' says Aupamanyava. It is known: because the self-born Brahma manifested himself to them while practising austerities, they became seers; that is the characteristic of the seers.”
Cited for
A rishi is a seer, not an author. Yaska's Nirukta says so: "He saw the hymns." The rishi's name marks the one to whom the eternal hymn appeared. It does not make him its composer, any more than a prophet composes what he receives.
The response
Take the hymns on their own terms. A man who only sees a hymn does not say he "fashioned" it as a carpenter shapes wood. He does not call it "new" and "never matched". Nor does he name the king who paid him "Two hundred cows from Devavân's descendant, two chariots from Sudâs with mares to draw them". The Nirukta's own example places the seeing in time. Yaska defines "seer" while explaining a stanza of a hymn for rain, and he tells its story first. The god did not rain "for twelve years in the kingdom of Śantanu", and Devapi offered to be the king's priest. "Here is his hymn expressing a desire for rain." So even on Yaska's account, this hymn came in a named king's reign, as a prayer for rain in a drought. A hymn that answers one drought in one kingdom speaks to its own day. The traditional indexes define a rishi as the one "whose words the hymns were". And Shankara rests the Veda's eternity on "the absence of the remembrance of an agent", yet the hymns remember their makers by name.
Where it lands — Seeing can mean inspiration, but the hymns describe making, newness, payment and events in time. On their own testimony they were composed by the poets who name themselves.
Rig Veda 5.2.11 — Mandala 5, Hymn 2, verse 11
“As a skilled craftsman makes a car, a singer I, Mighty One! this hymn for thee have fashioned. If thou, O Agni, God, accept it gladly, may we obtain thereby the heavenly Waters.”
Cited for
"Fashioned" is a poet's image. The rishi receives a vision and gives it form in speech, and the hymns themselves say the gods give the gift of song. "New" means newly sung in this age, not newly made. The words themselves are eternal.
The response
Grant the image. It is still an image of human making: the poet puts himself in the carpenter's place, not the listener's. Grant, too, that the gods gave the gift of song, as Macdonell says the hymns claim in a general way. A poet who is inspired and then shapes his own words is still their author. That is exactly what "authorless" denies. The Veda's defenders do not say the rishis were gifted poets. They say the words existed before any poet. As for "new", one poet calls his words apurvya. Griffith renders it "never matched", and Muir "which have never before existed". Either way, the poet says his words are unlike any before them. No one describes words that have always existed in that way.
Where it lands — Inspiration does not make a text authorless. The poets say they shaped their words and that the words were new, which is the opposite of words that always existed.
Qur'an 10:16 — Surat Yunus (Jonah), verse 16
“Say: "If Allah had so willed, I should not have rehearsed it to you, nor would He have made it known to you. A whole life-time before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?"”
Cited for
Then the Prophet (ﷺ) was a seer too. The Qur'an came through the mouth of Muhammad (ﷺ), and Muslims name him as the one who received it. If naming Nodhas makes him his hymn's author, naming Muhammad (ﷺ) makes him the Qur'an's author. The argument turns straight back on Islam.
The response
The difference is what each book says about itself. The page's case does not rest on a name in an index. It argues from the hymns' own words, in which the poet says "I" have fashioned this. The Qur'an never has the Prophet (ﷺ) say he made a surah. It says the reverse. He is told to answer: "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it". And the answer goes on: "I follow naught but what is revealed unto me". He is threatened with death if he were to "invent any sayings in Our name". He does not speak "of (his own) Desire"; before it came he could not "recite a Book". And the Qur'an denies that it is "the word of a poet", while the Vedic poets call themselves singers who shaped their hymns. For the comparison to hold, a Vedic poet would have to say, "It is not for me to change it". Or the Qur'an would have to say, "I with my lips have fashioned". Neither says so.
Where it lands — Both books are judged by their own testimony. The hymns say a poet made them; the Qur'an says the Prophet (ﷺ) did not make it and could not change it.
Qur'an 79:23-24 — Surat al-Nazi'at (Those who drag forth), verses 23-24
“Then he collected (his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, "I am your Lord, Most High".”
Cited for
The "I" belongs to the eternal text. The rishi saw the whole mantra, first person and all. The Qur'an has Pharaoh say, "I am your Lord, Most High", and no Muslim says Pharaoh wrote the Qur'an. First-person words in a scripture do not make the speaker its author.
The response
The Qur'an does quote others, and it says whose words they are. It tells how Pharaoh "collected (his men) and made a proclamation". He said, "I am your Lord, Most High". God (﷾) tells the story, and Pharaoh is a figure in it. The hymns cited here have no such frame. The poets of 5.2 and 6.32 speak in their own voice, each about the hymn he made for his god. Nodhas signs his hymn with his own name. Of Kaṣyapa, Griffith notes that "the seer of the hymn addresses himself". The tradition's own indexes name the rishi as the one "whose words the hymns were". And the Mimamsa, which calls the Veda authorless, gives it no author at all. So there is no one in the text who could be quoting the poet.
Where it lands — A quoted speaker is framed by the one who quotes him. The Qur'an frames Pharaoh's words as God's (﷾) report. Nothing in these hymns frames the poet's "I" as anyone's report but his own.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.10 — chapter 2, section 4, verse 10
“As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of a lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus, verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa (legends), Purâna (cosmogonies), Vidyâ (knowledge), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (prose rules), Anuvyâkhyânas (glosses), Vyâkhyânas (commentaries). From him alone all these were breathed forth.”
Cited for
The Veda says where it came from. It was "breathed forth" from the great Being, like smoke from a fire (Brihadaranyaka 2.4.10). The Purusha hymn says the hymns, chants and sacrificial formulas were born from the primal sacrifice (Rig Veda 10.90.9). The Veda's own testimony is that it has no human source.
The response
Both passages come from later layers, speaking about older hymns that speak of their own making. The Upanishads close the Vedic literature. The Purusha hymn is in the tenth book, and Griffith calls it "of comparatively recent origin". It already names the Richas, the Sama-hymns, the Yajus and "spells and charms". Griffith thinks these are "probably those of the later collection of the Atharva-veda". So it was composed when these kinds of hymn were already known by name. And the Upanishad's image covers far more than books. When it tells the same story again (4.5.11), the list goes on. What was breathed forth includes "what is sacrificed, what is poured out, food, drink, this world and the other world, and all creatures". The verse speaks of everything coming from the one great Being. It does not say how the hymns were composed, and the hymns themselves say that poets fashioned them.
Where it lands — These verses speak of all things coming from the great Being, food, drink and all creatures included. They do not show that the hymns had no human makers, and the hymns say they had.
Rig Veda 10.71.1-3 — Mandala 10, Hymn 71, verses 1-3
“When men, Bṛihaspati, giving names to objects, sent out Vâk's first and earliest utterances, All that was excellent and spotless, treasured within them, was disclosed through their affection. Where, like men cleansing corn-flour in a cribble, the wise in spirit have created language, Friends see and recognize the marks of friendship: their speech retains the blessèd sign imprinted. With sacrifice the trace of Vâk they followed, and found her harbouring within the Ṛishis. They brought her, dealt her forth in many places: seven singers make her tones resound in concert.”
Cited for
The hymn on Speech says the seers followed the trace of Vak "and found her harbouring within the Ṛishis". Speech was there before them; they found it, they did not make it. Shankara cites this verse to show that the Veda is eternal.
The response
Read the verse with the two before it. The hymn begins: "When men, Bṛihaspati, giving names to objects, sent out Vâk's first and earliest utterances". It goes on: "the wise in spirit have created language". Its own opening says men gave the names and the wise created language. Griffith explains the verse Shankara cites: in the course of sacrifice they found "that the inspired Ṛishis alone understood Speech as required for religious purposes". The hymn praises the seers' mastery of sacred speech; it does not say that their hymns were never made. It is also a hymn of the tenth book, speaking about the older hymns, which say plainly that poets fashioned them.
Where it lands — The hymn Shankara cites itself says men gave names and the wise created language. It praises the seers' skill; it does not deny that they composed.
Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts III, pp. 77-80 and 215
Muir gives the Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini (1.1.27-32) with their commentary. The objection is raised that the Veda cannot be eternal, because persons subject to birth and death are named in it, such as "Babara Pravahani". The Sutras answer that sound, and so the Veda, is eternal; that the books named after Katha and others are so named because those teachers handed them down; and that such names are common to eternal things: Babara is the wind, which makes the sound babara. Muir comments (p. 215) that Jaimini meets the objection by explaining away the names of historical persons, and that Yaska, who wrote the Nirukta, speaks of the Kikatas of Rig Veda 3.53.14 as a non-Aryan nation.
Cited for
The Mimamsa answers this. The words of the Veda are eternal sounds (Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.27-32). Names that look like people are eternal things: Babara Pravahani is the wind. "New" means newly recited in this age. And, as Shankara teaches, the same names and forms return in every new creation (Brahma Sutra 1.3.28-30).
The response
The hymns rule this out themselves. They set "old and recent" seers side by side, and pray "as by ancient seers" and "by living" ones. Sayana, a 14th-century commentator, explained the living seers as "us of the present day". Muir drew the conclusion: this recognition of a succession of seers "refutes, by the testimony of the Veda itself, the assertion of Jaimini". The poet tells of his own wages: "Two hundred cows from Devavân's descendant, two chariots from Sudâs with mares to draw them". Sudas is a king, the son of Divodasa, as Griffith notes. The same hymn tells of his wars, and the poet says his gift of four horses carries "me and my son". Yaska himself read such names as history: he took the Kikatas as a non-Aryan people. And Jaimini did not find the eternal-names rule in the hymns. The Sutras raise the objection that the Veda names people born and dying, then explain those names away. The rule is brought to the text to save the doctrine; the text itself says the opposite. The Qur'an also tells of people and events, but always as God (﷾) telling of them, as it tells of Pharaoh (79:23-24). These poets tell of themselves.
Where it lands — The hymns speak of earlier and later poets, and a poet speaks of his own payment. Reading these as eternal sounds is a rule laid on the text, not something the text says.
Rig Veda 7.18.22 — Mandala 7, Hymn 18, verse 22
“Priest-like, with praise, I move around the altar, earning Paijavana's reward, O Agni, Two hundred cows from Devavân's descendant, two chariots from Sudâs with mares to draw them.”
Cited for
The dana-stutis, the verses praising a patron's gifts, are later additions tacked onto the hymns. They say nothing about how the Veda itself arose. Take them out, and the eternal Veda remains.
The response
Suppose some of them were added later. They still stand in the Rig Veda as it has been recited and handed down, and that text is shruti. If verses praising a patron's gifts could enter the revealed text, human hands shaped that text. That is exactly what "authorless" denies. And the case does not rest on them. Verses that praise no patron still say their poets "fashioned" them and call them "new". The hymn that speaks of seers "old and recent" is a prayer, not a list of gifts.
Where it lands — If some gift-verses were added later, human hands shaped the text. Either way, the hymns that are not gift-verses still speak of their own making.
Qur'an 1:1-7 — Surat al-Fatiha (The Opening), verses 1-7
“In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.”
Cited for
The Qur'an has human words too. Al-Fatiha is a prayer spoken by people to God: "Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek". If the Vedic hymns are human because they are prayers, so is the Qur'an's first surah.
The response
Al-Fatiha is a prayer God (﷾) taught, not a prayer a poet says he made. In a hadith qudsi reported in Sahih Muslim, the Prophet (ﷺ) said that Allah (﷾) said He has divided the prayer between Himself and His servant. Allah (﷾) answers the servant verse by verse as he recites it. "Thee do we worship" is, He says, between Him and His servant, and the servant shall have what he asks. The words are God's (﷾), given to the worshipper to say, as elsewhere He tells the Prophet (ﷺ), "Say". No verse of the Qur'an has anyone claim to have fashioned it, and the book challenges all people to produce one surah like it.
Where it lands — A prayer that God (﷾) teaches His servants is still His word. The Vedic poet claims his hymn as his own work; the Qur'an claims every word as God's (﷾).
Manusmriti 2.10 — chapter 2, verse 10
“But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.”
Cited for
Shruti is closed: the four Vedas with their Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. Manu ranks it above all. Smriti is open by design, like your hadith and law. So Hinduism has a fixed highest scripture, and the openness is only in the lower layer.
The response
Manu does rank shruti highest, and the page says so. The trouble is knowing which texts are shruti. The Muktika counts 1,180 branches of the Veda with "one Upanishad" in each, yet it names only 108. By its own count, most of the Upanishads it says the Veda held are not on its list. The Allopanishad, apparently written in Akbar's time, presents itself as an Upanishad of the Atharva Veda. Eliot cites a report of 1908 that Brahmans in the north of India recite it. Grant that most teachers class the epics and Puranas below shruti. Yet the Chandogya, itself shruti, lists the Itihasa-purana "as the fifth" after the four Vedas. The Bhagavata calls the Itihasas and Puranas "the Fifth Veda", and the Mahabharata says it outweighed "the four Vedas". A canon whose limits must be drawn against its own texts' claims is not closed.
Where it lands — Every school puts the Veda first. But its own texts do not settle which books make up the Veda, or whether the epics and Puranas share its rank.
Supreme Court of India, 1966 (Yagnapurushadji)
In a case on whether the Swaminarayan sect is a religion separate from Hinduism, a five-judge bench (the judgment by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar) said that Hindu religion is hard to define: unlike other religions it does not claim any one prophet, does not worship any one God and does not hold any one dogma, and it may broadly be described as a way of life. It named as the first basic concept of Hindu thought the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters, and it adopted as fairly adequate and satisfactory the working formula of B. G. Tilak: "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse and realisation of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion". The Court held that the Swaminarayan followers are Hindus.
Cited for
Hinduism is a way of life, not a religion. It has no single founder, book or dogma. Even India's Supreme Court said it may broadly be described as a way of life. That breadth is a strength: it makes room for many paths and many books. Asking which book is its scripture misunderstands it.
The response
The same judgment gives the answer. It names as the first basic concept of Hindu thought "the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters". The formula it adopts begins "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence". Breadth can be a virtue in how people live together. But the question here is whose words a scripture holds, and on that the judgment puts the Veda first. A way of life that holds a book to be revealed can be tested by what that book says. So can a law book that says of its rule on truthful speech, "that is the eternal law". It also calls its sources things that "must not be called into question". And the formula's last clause speaks of the realisation "that the number of gods to be worshipped is large". That is a claim about worship, and it can be weighed against the Upanishads' own verses on the one Lord.
Where it lands — Breadth may help people live together, but it does not tell anyone whose words a scripture holds. By the Supreme Court's own account, Hinduism rests on the Veda as its highest authority. What it teaches can be examined like any other scripture.
Qur'an 53:3-4 — Surat al-Najm (The Star), verses 3-4
“Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:”
Cited for
Muslims have the same problem. You say the Prophet (ﷺ) did not speak of his own desire, so you treat his sayings as inspired as well. Then your hadith are your smriti. Muslims disagree about which hadith count, just as Hindus disagree about which Upanishads count.
The response
Hadith are not the Qur'an, and no Muslim calls a hadith collection the word of God (﷾). Each report is tested by its chain of narrators and graded, and a report that fails is set aside. That is a method for weighing reports about the Prophet (ﷺ), not a dispute about scripture. On the Qur'an there is no such dispute. Every Muslim recites the same 114 surahs, and the Qur'an's challenge rests on that book alone. The Hindu question is different. It is not whether a report about a teacher is reliable. It is which texts belong to the shruti itself, the layer Hindus call revealed.
Where it lands — Muslims weigh reports about the Prophet (ﷺ), but they agree on what the Qur'an is. The Hindu dispute is about the extent of the revealed Veda itself.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4986 — Kitab Fada'il al-Qur'an (Virtues of the Qur'an), hadith 4986
Zayd ibn Thabit reports that after many who knew the Qur'an by heart were killed at Yamama, Abu Bakr asked him to gather the Qur'an into one volume, reminding him that he used to write down the revelation for the Messenger of Allah. Zayd collected it from written pieces and from the memories of men, and the finished copy passed from Abu Bakr to Umar and then to Hafsa.
Cited for
The Qur'an too was compiled by men. Abu Bakr had it gathered after the Prophet's (ﷺ) death, and Uthman had copies made from that volume. If human hands in collecting the Veda count against it, they count against the Qur'an too.
The response
Compiling is not composing. Muslims agree that the Companions gathered the Qur'an into one volume after the Prophet's (ﷺ) death. Zayd ibn Thabit, who used to write down the revelation for him, collected it for Abu Bakr. He gathered it from written pieces and from the memories of men. So he collected what was already written and learned by heart. Uthman's copies were made from that same volume. In these reports no one adds words of his own. Hindu tradition has a compiler too. The Bhagavata says Vyasa split the Veda, "originally one", into four. No one says that makes Vyasa the hymns' composer. This page does not argue from compiling. It argues from what the hymns say about their own making, and the Qur'an says the opposite about itself.
Where it lands — Gathering a book is not writing it. The Companions collected what the Prophet (ﷺ) had recited, while the Vedic poets say they made their hymns themselves.
Perspectives
The Veda is not of human making (Mimamsa and Vedanta)
The Veda is apaurusheya. It has no human author, and no author of it is remembered. Its words are eternal, and the rishis only saw and handed on what already existed. Names in it that look like people's names are eternal sounds, and in each new creation the same names and forms return.
Purva Mimamsa (the Sutras of Jaimini) and Vedanta (Shankara); the Nirukta of Yaska
The Nirukta says a seer is so called from his having vision: "He saw the hymns."
Rebuttal
Seeing can mean inspiration, and that may be granted. But the hymns speak of fashioning, newness and payment, which a man who only saw the hymns would not claim. A man who only sees a hymn does not say he made it as a carpenter makes a car.
Shankara founds the Veda's eternity on the absence of the remembrance of an agent. He cites Rig Veda 10.71.3, where speech was found dwelling in the rishis.
Rebuttal
Read the verse with the two before it. The hymn says men gave names to things and the wise created language. It praises the seers' skill with speech. It does not say their hymns were never made.
The Brihadaranyaka says the Vedas were breathed forth from the great Being. The Purusha hymn says the hymns and chants were born from the first sacrifice.
Rebuttal
These passages are later than the hymns they speak of. The Upanishad says food, drink and all creatures were breathed forth too. So it speaks of everything coming from the great Being. It does not say how the hymns were composed, and the hymns say poets fashioned them.
The Veda seems to name men who were born and died, such as Babara Pravahani. The Mimamsa Sutras answer that such names stand for things that are eternal: Babara Pravahani is the wind. And Shankara answers that the same names and forms come back in every new creation.
Rebuttal
The hymns set old and recent seers side by side. A poet who says a king paid him two hundred cows is telling of his own wages, in his own voice. Muir says this "refutes, by the testimony of the Veda itself, the assertion of Jaimini".
God is the Veda's author (Nyaya and Vaiseshika)
The Veda is infallible because its author is God, who knows all things. Its authority comes from a competent and all-knowing source, not from being without an author.
The Nyaya and Vaiseshika schools; Udayana's Kusumanjali
The Vaiseshika school and the Kusumanjali derive the Veda's infallibility from the omniscience of its author, who is God.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees that a revealed book comes from God (﷾), who knows all things. But the claim must be tested by the book itself. The hymns say the poet fashioned them, and nothing in them frames his "I" as a report of God's (﷾) words. The Qur'an says God (﷾) sent it down, and the Prophet (ﷺ) was forbidden to change a word.
A way of life with many scriptures
Hinduism has no single founder, book or dogma. It is a way of life resting on the Veda, open to many paths and many texts. The epics and Puranas carry the Veda's teaching, and the Veda itself calls them the fifth.
Modern Hindu teachers, as the Supreme Court of India described their view in 1966
The Supreme Court of India said the Hindu religion may broadly be described as a way of life. It adopted Tilak's formula: accepting the Vedas, many ways to salvation, and many gods.
Rebuttal
Breadth helps people live together, but it does not say whose words a scripture holds. The same judgment puts acceptance of the Veda first. A book held to be revealed can be tested by what it says.
The Chandogya Upanishad lists the Itihasa-purana (epic and old story) as the fifth, after the four Vedas. And the Bhagavata calls the Itihasas and Puranas the Fifth Veda.
Rebuttal
Grant that the Chandogya lists it fifth. That shows the edge of scripture is not agreed. In 2.10 Manu names the Veda and the law books as the two sources that "must not be called into question". The epics are not named there. The Muktika counts 1,180 branches, each with one Upanishad, yet names only 108 Upanishads. So "fifth" does not tell anyone which books are shruti.
Where the academy stands
Status: Consensus
Historians of the Veda agree that the Rig Veda's hymns were composed by many poets over several centuries. They also agree that the poets speak of their hymns as their own work. Macdonell, writing in 1900, found that the Rigvedic poets knew nothing of the later doctrine of revelation. Muir collected the passages in which they name themselves, call their hymns new and distinguish older and newer seers. Griffith judged the Purusha hymn, which speaks of the Vedas being born, to be of comparatively recent origin.
The Islamic perspective
By their own account, the hymns of the Rig Veda are the work of human poets. Any truth in them may go back to the warners God (﷾) sent to every people (35:24). The Qur'an is the speech of God (﷾), sent down to the Prophet (ﷺ), who was forbidden to add or change a word. It is one book for every Muslim. And it challenges anyone to produce its like.
The hymns' poets say they fashioned new hymns like craftsmen, and they name themselves.
The hymns set old and recent seers side by side. And one poet names the king who paid him with cows and chariots.
The Indian schools disagree about the Veda's origin, some calling it authorless and others naming God (﷾) as its author.
The Qur'an denies that it is a poet's word. And it forbids the Prophet (ﷺ) to make up or change anything in it.
The Qur'an challenges all who doubt it to produce a surah like it.