[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.
omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 9 11:57:33 CDT 2011
<<<Correct. This is what parataH-prAmANyavAdin-s say.
But, mImAMsaka-s and vedAntin-s are svataH-prAmANyavAdin-s. So, there is no
need of guNa-s of puruSha to make words pramANa.>>>
Agreed, so the more fundamental question here is why svataH-prAmANya is preferable to parataH-prAmANya. In fact, these are not the only two options. A third option is "svataH-prAmANya for pratyakSha", and "parataH-prAmANya for anumAna and shabda". i.e, the authority of logic and verbal testimony could depend on pratyakSha, but pratyakSha itself need not depend on anything else. I have read (in Edwin Bryant's translation of Yoga Sutras) that this is the epistemology followed by the Yoga school, and it's also (broadly speaking) what modern science follows.
I am aware of an argument that parataH-prAmANya leads to an infinite regress, but that does not apply to the third option above, since pratyakSha is at the root. What do you think about this?
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list