How can anyone prove the authenticity of a scripture?

Say, scripture S1 has some verses, which talk about a certain phenomenon. Person P1 makes some assertions based on this scripture. Person P2 challenges his assertions saying scripture S1 is not authentic.

P1 then asks for a proof. P2 provides him with a couple of books or websites where there is a quad erat demonstrandum argument, which pushes S1 into the list of cooked up scriptures. P1 then questions the authenticity of those couple of books or websites. (Let us call these, C1)

P2 has to provide a valid argument which certifies that whatever is written in C1 is correct. The focus is now on P2 who finds himself in the same shoes as P1.

Is there an end to this process?

There is no absolute truth. There is just the lack of it. You cannot certify the authenticity if you start questioning the facts specified in the aides. For instance, I write a book today named, “The Fallacies in Silappadikaram” and provide an argument which is rich in “facts”. If you believe my version, you have to discard Silappadikaram. If you believe in Silappadikaram you have trash mine.

But how do you arrive at this decision? You have to explore Silappadikaram yourself and validate the points specified in that. For this you need an authentic version of the age old history. The history book you refer may be wrong.

Basically my point is that you cannot certify the absolute authenticity of any work. This is not mathematical to provide a proof beyond doubt. You have to start on a firm ground… believe in its firmness and build your castle. It all boils down to believing something without questioning at some point.

HareKrsna disciples might want to use the term “perfect teachers”. What the perfect teacher says has to be believed. Otherwise, there is no end to the arguments. One will never be able to move on.

Personally I would like to believe the scriptures. Someone else may argue that the C1 is authentic. That someone else will never be able to prove his stance. And I will never be able to prove mine.

A few days ago, we were discussing about the history of Tirupati temple. There is an argument that until the fifteenth century the temple had been a Shakthi shrine. But Silappadikaram written in 7 – 9 AD mentions “vada venkatam” (Means North Venkateswara.. literally.) It should be referring to Tirupati temple because there is no account of any other Venkatam temple in the northern side of Tamizh region.

I wrote this just to exemplify the situation. You have to believe something to disprove something else. And I can always question that belief.