[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[Omkar Deshpande]

<<<Search for errors in each. If any one is devoid of errors, go with that. If both have errors, leave them and search third one without that.>>>

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)?

<<<I'm amazed by use of words by you and some others. You and they appear to suggest that some schools invented some theories to support their view without having any logic behind it. They created theories to suit their motives. They were either idiots or fanatics. >>>

I don't know about others' views in detail, but I have not suggested that the inventions of any of the schools were without any logic. Just because a theory is invented by a school does not mean the theory is incorrect, and just because historical conditions (such as what philosophical rivals a school had at that time) influence the development of philosophy within a school does not imply that the philosophy is incorrect. So I'm certainly not saying either directly or indirectly that Mimamsakas were idiots/fanatics. All I'm noting is that in their time,

a) They had to respond to rivals who were depending on the omniscience of some human being or the existence of an omniscient God as a foundation for their philosophy
b) They had to defend the Vedas in a way that did not rely on the same kind of foundation.
c) They did not believe in an omniscient God and did not accept an origin for the world. 

and a svataH-pramANa based epistemology fulfills that need to provide a philosophical defense, when it is coupled with indefinitely extending back the existence of the Vedic tradition on earth to minus infinity time. So I asked how can we be sure that this wasn't how the theory came about, as an intelligent philosophical response? Does that imply a svataH-pramANa based epistemology is incorrect? No. Does that mean it's without logic? No. The development of philosophy is driven by intelligent postulates and arguments. You have yourself enumerated different stances taken by different schools on this issue. What motivated different schools to come up with different epistemological stances? Why do you think the Mimamsakas' motivations were any different from that of the other schools?

<<<And, we people are without any bias. We know more than them. >>>

I'm not saying that I don't have biases. I'm only looking for the requisite philosophical and historical arguments that establish svataH-prAmANya as the right epistemology without any doubt. The very purpose of asking you is based on an implicit assumption that I could be ignorant and have biases, and so I look forward to the needed philosophical arguments to remove them. 

Regards,

Omkar