Shastra - as a pramana?

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Regarding Sadananda's comments on the apaurusheyatvam of Sruti :-

As I see it, advaita vedAnta can have two functions, one that is pure
philosophizing (advaita) independent of source texts, and one that is
textual exegesis (vedAnta). As textual exegesis, advaita vedaanta has also
functioned as religion. Now, in a religious tradition, one has to follow
certain norms that define the source texts. It is convenient to follow
those laid down by the mImAmsA sUtras, whose primary function was textual
exegesis.

Secondly, the argument about Sruti being apaurusheya is akin to the view
that science is apaurusheya. Today, we view the laws of physics as beyond
the persons whose names they are attached to, because we believe that
these laws describe an essential aspect of the physical universe.
Similarly, the tradition views the vedic texts as beyond the names of the
sages whose names are attached to them, simply because the vedas are seen
as describing an essential aspect of the entire universe. Just as Newton's
law of gravitation was not invented by Newton, yAjnavalkya's teaching in
the Sukla yajurveda was not invented by him. Such Rshis are only seen as
teaching universal truths, and that a specific name is associated with it
is just a matter of human convention and tradition. Specifically for
advaita vedAnta, Sruti therefore becomes the source of human knowledge of
brahman. There is nothing wrong with such a view, is there? It is not just
blind belief in a text. Large portions of the upanishadic texts are
explained away as arthavAda, both by the mImAmsakas and the vedAntins,
following certain basic rules of interpretation. Sruti therefore serves an
epistemological purpose, but it is up to its interpretors to explain what
it means. Blind belief in the sacredness or divinity of a text always
leads to extremely literal meanings of every word in the text. The
situation with Vedic interpretation is far from this.

The muNDaka upanishad does not describe vedAnta as aparA vidyA. If vedAnta
is brahmavidyA, then vedAnta *is* parA vidyA, according to the upanishad.

Any logical system has to have certain axioms that cannot usually be
proved within the logical system itself. The idea that Sruti is
apaurusheya cannot be *proved* within vedAnta, it has to be taken as
given. What can be done is to *disprove* that Sruti is paurusheya, and
this is what the writers do. Most of their arguments try to refute the
contention that human being(s) composed the vedic texts. Strictly
speaking, in advaita logic, refuting X is not equal to proving not-X.
However, it is obvious that the writers are perfectly aware of this.

Finally, although we do agree that nobody can deny the I, we has to be
careful about what is this I that one is not denying. For most people,
there is absolutely no denial of their being son/daughter of so and so,
employee of so and so, earner of so many dollars, so many feet tall, so
many pounds in weight etc. However, such a notion of I is limited, and but
for texts like the upanishads, we would never know better. There are such
mystical texts in almost every religious tradition, e.g. Sufism, Jewish
and Christian mysticism etc. However, the Vedic religion is unique in that
these mystic insights have been given the status of Sruti and looked up
to. That is all there is to it, really.

Vidyasankar