[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 00:48, Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:

> What errors do you see in the epistemology where pratyakSha is the
> foundational pramANa even for shabda (whose validity is not intrinsic but
> dependent on pratyakSha)?
>

yoga-sUtra, etc. talk of dependency of anumAna, shabda, etc. on pratyaxa;
and not of dependencies of prAmANya-s they have in them. So, this view is
baseless.
I think you can understand difference of words used.

Second, even if I accept your view anyway, as anumAna, etc. depend on
pratyaxa, so pratyaxa depends on eyes, etc. Is this any offence to need
things essential for your birth ? - This is said according to your line of
thinking, i.e., without discriminating words.

Third, One can not say 'because this knowledge is pratyaxa, so it is
essentially pramANa', because pratyaxa-bhramas are seen. So, pratyaxa also
needs other pramANas to verify it's validity. I don't see any cause for
rewarding only pratyaxa with intrinsic validity, as that will make
perception of snake in rope valid.
So, this view ends in 'validity of every pramANa depends on other pramANa',
i.e., prAmANya-paratastva-vAda.
Now, you know that it is not observed in our lives. We don't test every
knowledge, whether it is born of eyes or shabda. We just have
faith=determination that 'this knowledge is valid'. So,
prAmANya-paratastva-vAda is opposed to experience.
We only test validity of knowledge when we confront conflicts with another.
Without any conflict we just accept them as true and behave accordingly.
This observation is basis of svataH-prAmANya-vAda.

prAmANya-paratastva-vAda will lead you to get your whole life in knowing a
single thing. You know a pot with eye. Now for validity of knowledge of pot
you will need some other knowledge originating from shabda or li~Nga to
confirm. Now you will need some other pramANa to confirm validity of second
knowledge, because validity of any knowledge is not intrinsic. And so on
.....

...