[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 02:25, Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> <<<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.>>>
>
> Ok, let's say that for argument's sake, I accept that the above
> epistemology is not what Yoga Sutras say (I will quote from the Sutras
> separately to argue on what they say). How would that show that the above
> epistemology itself has errors?
>

Same is the answer. Just remove 'yoga-sUtra, etc talk of' with 'we
experience'.


>  <<<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.>>>
>
> Sorry, I couldn't follow the above paragraph. Were there typos in it?
>

No typos.
For clarity replace
need = depend on
essential for your birth = which are your cause

 <<<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.>>>
>
> Sure, I agree with you. But that doesn't imply that shabda should be
> considered svataH-pramANa. It actually leads to what you have said next:
>

Sure. You are going the right way.
But, remember, I was replying to assumption and not deciding.


>  <<<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.>>>
>
> Here is where neuroscience has something interesting to say (for details on
> what follows, please see Robert Burton's book: "On Being Certain: Believing
> You're Right Even When You're Not"). According to neuroscience, the feeling
> of validity ("this knowledge is valid") is an involuntary sensation that is
> generated by the brain independent of our voluntary will.


Involuntary means 'out of control of will' or 'controlled by automatic
nervous system'.
We don't consider second meaning as we don't experience it. Our system is
based on observations of behavior and knowledge and not on that of nerves.
We accept consciousness and so don't indulge in senseless nerves. According
to us any thing happening in brain or nerves (regarding knowledge, etc.)
follows consciousness and mind sentient by it.
First meaning is acceptable. We accept that any knowledge is vastu-tantra,
i.e. depends upon things and facts. It is not accepted to be controlled by
will. When controlled it is called meditation, upAsanA, tarka, etc.
So, it means that we have involuntary feeling of validity because validity
resides in knowledge. No other meaning is acceptable.

I don't know why would one quote neuroscience instead of checking his own
experiences and observing others.
I don''t feel it's a subject specific to neuroscience. You can check these
things in your own and others' behavior, experiences,etc.


> It is something that "happens" to us.


Yes, because it is nature of knowledge. Do you consciously and independently
decide that the thing in front is pot ?



> Secondly, logic is something we follow in our conscious mind.


You mean to say we use logic consciously. Yes. The word 'use' denotes it.

It's the unconscious that primarily governs our decisions (such as when to
> be satisfied with the truth value of some claim) because the calculations in
> our brain are mainly happening in the unconscious,


Already made our stand clear.

In fact, most people employ logic "after" they already have a "feeling of
> validity" in favor of some claim,


Yes. But, not 'most people'. All people in most places employ logic
afterwards - is correct expression.


> and the role of logic is mainly to rationalize
>  that feeling after-the-fact.


Yes. role is to check validity and not essentially rationalize.

So even if one 'logically' followed prAmANya-paratastva-vAda, one would
> still be subject to the 'feeling of validity' generated by the brain which
> will make one stop at the point when it's generated


Yes. This is innate to us. Saying that prAmANya-paratastva-vAda is correct
is just neglecting your own experience.


> Even those who follow prAmANya-svatastva-vAda are convinced not because the
> logic itself is perfect. They are convinced because their brain generates a
> 'feeling of validity' based on their own training.
>

You must add 'at first' to your second sentence.
Anyone feels validity svataH at first and then check it with logic, etc if
confronted by conflicts. So, when he determines it second time, it's logic
which brings him to this. Logics, etc. of prAmANya-paratastva-vAdin-s are
not imperfect. They do their work nicely.


> So there is no 'pragmatic' danger of the sort that you refer to here:
>
> <<<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>>>
>

Yes. Because you accept prAmANya-svatastva-vAda.


>  <<<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.>>>
>
> This observation merely indicates the external behavior of people, which is
> governed by the internal workings of their brain (that generates a 'feeling
> of validity').


We say that external behavior and internal workings of brain are governed by
consciousness, mind and objects outside.


> The observation in itself does not prove that svataH-prAmANya is the
> 'right' epistemology.


 What do you mean by it's 'not right' ?

And, what do you mean by 'svataH-prAmANyam' ?
If intrinsic validity, then it means that you will accept parataH-prAmANyam.
And that is not possible. We have shown errors in that.
So, now you are left with knowledge without any prAmANya, either svataH or
parataH. So, do you feel yourself doubting everything now, including your
words ?
If you just meant that theory of svataH-prAmANyam is not totally correct,
then what are the problems found here ? Whatever you will show here, I'll
show(and you yourself can discover) same or even bigger problem with any
other theory related to prAmANyam.

That's why I go back to my general question - how does one ascertain the
> 'right' epistemology?
>

By following experiences and observation.