At 07:56 AM 6/17/98 -0400, gopalram@erols.com wrote: >Dear VaishNavas, > >There was a discussion sometime ago about apaursheyatva >("un-authoredness") >nature of the shruti. > >My "understanding" of that discussion is that shruti is accepted by >vaidikas (or vedantins) as independent source of pure knowledge >not "authored" by anyone including God Himself, because otherwise >there would be an endless circularity of "logic" as follows: > >- Existence of God is valid because shruti says so, and >- Shruti is an authoritative source of pure knowledge because God >"authored" it > >If we adopt same line of "reasoning", one might ask the following >question: > >1.What is the pramaana that shruti is pure factual and authoritative >knowledge? > >Attempting to answer the question could result in a paradox: > >a. If the pramaana for the validity of the shruti is contained in the > shruti itself, then there would be a self-circularity . (in other >words, > shruti would have to be accepted as authority because shruti itself >says so) > >b. If the pramaana for the validity of the shruti is *not* contained in > the shruti, then the pramaana would not be authoritative. > >c. If the pramaana for the validity of the shruti is contained in smrti > text like the Bhagavad Gita authored by God Himself, then we have the > > mutual circularity mentioned in previous discussions. > >[ I have vague memory of some kind of "paradox" like the above, >mentioned in > mathematical set theory: It goes something as below: > > Let "S" be the universal set whose members are sets that do not contain > > themselves as members. > Then can "S" contain itself as a member ? > - if "S" does contain itself as member, then "S" contradicts its >definition. > - on the otherhand, if "S" does not contain itself as a member, then > there is contradiction too ! >] > > ffff,0000,0000>Where is the fallacy ? >Is the question (1) itself invalid & absurd ? (since the authority of >the shruti is a basic axiom and shruti's authenticity must be accepted >without requiring pramaanam.) > > I think shruti's pramana is a basic axiom. If one says they do not want to accept that, then vaidikas state that we dont have to make you accept anything. we just dont meet eye to eye. Further, the need for accepting shruti is "aptavakya" ie. advice from trusted folks, and to some yogis, shruti appears as experience (mantra drastaraha). But yoga also needs some axiomatic acceptance of shruti based yogic techniq ues. This is fine because even in science, you accept an assumption and then prove that if a derivative experience of that assumption is true or can be experienced as valid, then the assumption is valid (and that nothing in the shruti is contradictory to experience.) adiyen Krishna Kalale >Obviously, mundane reasoning by a condition soul in impure consciousnes >would not help understand reality. So i request vaishNavas to kindly >bear >with my mental concoctions ? > >- Ram > > > >