Evaluate Prabhakara Mimamsaka's arguments for accepting sruti as pramana.

Prabhakara’s Conception of *Sruti* and *Pramana*

For Prabhakara, *sruti* isn’t merely information conveyed through sound but represents the words of an *apta* – a trustworthy and infallible authority (God). *Pramana* is defined as that which produces valid knowledge without requiring external corroboration. Unlike Kumarila Bhatta who argues for the validity of *sruti* based on its practical efficacy in fulfilling *dharma*, Prabhakara grounds its validity in its very nature as the utterance of an *apta*.

Arguments for *Sruti* as *Pramana*

1. *Svatah Pramanya* (Self-Validity)

The cornerstone of Prabhakara’s argument is the concept of *svatah pramanya*. He asserts that *sruti* is inherently valid; it doesn’t require any external proof or validation. This self-validity stems from the fact that *sruti* originates from an *apta vacana*. Since God is omniscient and benevolent, his words are, by definition, true and reliable. Any attempt to doubt *sruti* is considered illogical, as it implies doubting the very nature of God.

2. *Apta Vacana* and Infallibility

Prabhakara emphasizes that the authority of *sruti* rests on the infallibility of the speaker – God. He argues that the Vedas are not authored by humans, who are prone to error, but are eternal and revealed. This divine origin guarantees the truthfulness of the Vedic statements. The *apta*’s intention is always to communicate truth, and therefore, his words are automatically considered valid. This differs from ordinary human testimony, which requires assessment of the speaker’s reliability.

3. The Role of *Bhasha* (Language)

Prabhakara addresses the objection that language itself is fallible. He argues that Vedic language (*chandas*) is different from ordinary language. Vedic language is inherently precise and unambiguous, minimizing the possibility of misinterpretation. Furthermore, the context and structure of the Vedas contribute to their clarity and prevent errors in understanding.

4. Distinction from Kumarila Bhatta’s View

Kumarila Bhatta, another prominent Mimamsaka, argues for *sruti*’s validity based on its *phala* (fruit or result) – namely, the successful performance of Vedic rituals and the attainment of desired goals. Prabhakara rejects this pragmatic justification, arguing that validity cannot be dependent on consequences. For Prabhakara, validity is intrinsic to the source of knowledge, not its outcome. He believes that even if a Vedic injunction didn’t lead to a tangible result, it would still be valid because it originates from an *apta*.

Addressing Potential Objections

Critics might argue that accepting *sruti* as inherently valid leads to dogmatism and prevents critical inquiry. Prabhakara responds by stating that the purpose of Mimamsa is not to question the validity of the Vedas themselves, but to interpret them correctly. The focus is on understanding the meaning of the Vedic statements, not on proving their truth. Furthermore, Prabhakara acknowledges the possibility of apparent contradictions within the Vedas, which are resolved through careful hermeneutical principles.