pramÄṇera madhye Å›ruti pramÄṇa — pradhÄna
Å›ruti ye mukhyÄrtha kahe, sei se pramÄṇa

 pramÄṇera - of the evidences; madhye - in the midst; Å›ruti - the Vedic version; pramÄṇa - evidence; pradhÄna - chief; Å›ruti - the Vedic version; ye - whatever; mukhya-artha - chief meaning; kahe - says; sei se - that indeed; pramÄṇa - evidence.


Text

“Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence.â€

Purport

Works that should be consulted are ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmī’s Tattva-sandarbha (10-11), ÅšrÄ«la Baladeva VidyÄbhÅ«á¹£aṇa’s commentary on that, and the following verses of the Brahma-sÅ«tra: Å›Ästra-yonitvÄt (Vs. 1.1.3), tarkÄpratiṣṭhÄnÄt (Vs. 2.1.11) and Å›rutes tu Å›abda-mÅ«latvÄt (Vs. 2.1.27), as commented upon by ÅšrÄ« RÄmÄnujÄcÄrya, ÅšrÄ« MadhvÄcÄrya, ÅšrÄ« NimbÄrkÄcÄrya and ÅšrÄ«la Baladeva VidyÄbhÅ«á¹£aṇa. In his book Sarva-saá¹vÄdinÄ«, ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« has noted that although there are ten kinds of evidence — direct perception, the Vedic version, historical reference, hypothesis and so on — and although they are all generally accepted as evidence, the person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience is certain to be imperfect in four ways. That is, he is subject to committing mistakes, to becoming illusioned, to cheating and to having imperfect senses. Although the evidence may be correct, the person himself is in danger of being misled due to his material defects. Apart from the direct presentation, there is a chance that an interpretation may not be perfect. Therefore the conclusion is that only a direct presentation can be considered evidence. An interpretation cannot be accepted as evidence, but may be considered proof of evidence.

In the Bhagavad-gÄ«tÄ, at the very beginning it is stated:

dhá¹›tarÄṣṭra uvÄca
dharma-ká¹£etre kuru-ká¹£etre samavetÄ yuyutsavaḥ
mÄmakÄḥ pÄṇá¸avÄÅ› caiva kim akurvata sañjaya

The statements of the Bhagavad-gÄ«tÄ are themselves proof that there is a place of religious pilgrimage named Kuruká¹£etra where the PÄṇá¸avas and Kurus met to fight. After meeting there, what did they do? This was Dhá¹›tarÄṣṭra’s inquiry to Sañjaya. Although these statements are very clear, atheists try to interpret different meanings of the words dharma-ká¹£etra and kuru-ká¹£etra. Therefore ÅšrÄ«la JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ« has warned us not to depend on any kind of interpretation. It is better to take the verses as they are, without interpretation.