[Advaita-l] Shruti prAmANya and jnAna

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Namste,



On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
> The implication for the validity of Veda, based on this interpretation of
> svatah prAmANya is that, one need not prove that the Veda was created from
> a group of causal factors that were specially conducive to the Veda's
> validity (the omniscience of the person who created it). Rather, one only
> needs to be sure that it has not originated from a defective source - we
> know that the Veda did not arise from a defective source, because it has no
> source at all - hence we can be confident that the Veda is true.
>
>
How do you know no sources? It could be forgotten sources as well.





> However, the problem with this interpretation is that while the validity of
> the cognition arises intrinsically (i.e. from its causes), its validity is
> established by ascertaining that the causes that gave rise to it were
> normal.


No, the testing is all about either remove doubt about prAmANya or to
confirm it is indeed aprAmaNya. testing will never generate previously
non-existing prAmANya afresh.





> This is problematic in several ways. Firstly, if we are unable to
> identify a cause for cognition, then we are unable to say if a cognition is
> valid or not.


Simple, in case of no-cause cognition, absence of any bhAdaka establishes
its validity.

In cases of cognition known to having causes (pouruShEya shabda), you need
to have sAdanA-pramANa, because you know it has cause but not sure cause is
free from flaws.



> Moreover, this seems to contradict the second verse quoted
> above where KumArila says that the function of an existent thing (in this
> case, the power of the cognisance to reveal an object and by implication
> its power to do so correctly) is not dependent on anything else.
>

That's correct. It is the prAmANya svatatsva.

It is the same as in legal system -- by default you are not-guilty (same as
having prAmANya) unless proven otherwise in the court of law. You do not
need to establish you are not guilty afresh, but show flaw in evidences
which are saying you are guilty.


/sv