Shastra - as a pramana?

[sadananda]

Vidya has provided an interesting summary of the Advaita view of the
Apourusheyatvam of Sruti.

I have different but related questions.  I have been reading Sri
Ragavachari's translation of Sri Bhaashya -  Sri Ramaanuja's commentary on
Brahmasuutra. Slowly I hope to comment on this commentary since Sri
Ramanuja has given exhaustive criticism of advaita with Laghu Siddanta and
Mahasinddhanta - giving both purva paksha and then siddhanta.

The Brahma Sutra 3 - Shaastrayonitwaat - got my attention.  Essentially the
vedantins argue that Shastra pramana for the second sutra which essentially
says the Brahman is the cause for the world.

I have several questions.

Shastra pramana is based on the belief that it is Apourusheya. In that case
it is more a belief and not a logic.  Vedantins argue that all other
pramanaas starting from perception to inference( which may indirectly
depend on perception) cannot establish Brahman.  Hence only Shastra is the
appropriate pramaana.  I am unable to accept this logic. That Brahman is
beyond logic is logical and can be accepted with logic. That world falls
under the category of creation can be logically argued and I do not need
vedanta for that.  That there must be intelligence behind the creation can
also be established by logic.

And from advaita point - that "I " is the only one that cannot be negated
and even that can be established logically -  that I being single, advaita
follows logically without the need of any scripture.  Then why do I need
Sastra as pramana to establish  what?  That creation is a mental projection
can also argued logically.  I realize that experience that I am that
Ekameva adviteeyam is not through logic,  since logic is a thought process
and one has to go beyond the thought to see the truth as the truth.  But
even this is logical too.

Then fundamental question, particularly for advaita is whey does it have to
care for shastra as apourusheya or not and that it the only pramana.  Is it
politically motivated or logically motivated.  I am, in fact, reminded of
the Mundaka Upanishad verse that declares even vedanta as para vidya.  My
hats of to those Rushies who are so objective!

I have different way of looking shastra as pramana - Shastra not as veda
texts but veda as knowledge and shastra as science - then it is acceptable
to me that it is apourusheya.  Who wrote physics? if one asks - for me
physics as a science is apourusheya. Iswara can be argued as the master of
the laws of creation or himself the author of the laws of creation - either
way the buck stops there.
That is also logical.  That creation is maaya is also logical.

I am ananda (not only by name) is also logical.  Anantameva anandaH is also
logical.  I am Brahman follows logically.  Then whey do I need scriptures?

For Dwaitins I see the need.  If I have to establish only Narayana as the
Supreme, logic will not do and cannot do also.  Sastra is the only
pramaana.  If Shastras are written by some Rushies, then it is their
subjective opinions.  Hence it is important for dwaitins to establish that
shastra is apourusheya, even this establishment is by shastra alone -
through Brahma sutra 3 - a circular logic!

I am not negating the utility of shastras since individual experiences are
subjective.  What is logical is confirmed by shastras too and statements
that point out subjective experiences of Rishies may  be confirmed or may
provide a basis to check one's own subjective experience.  But for even
that I am not sure shastras are needed.  I quote shastras only to convince
others that I am not saying out of my hat!  But for my own conviction, I do
not see the need of shastra as pramana?  Any comments?

Hari Om!
Sadananda