[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[Omkar Deshpande]

Namaskara, 

<<<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? 

Regards,

Omkar