[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Philosophy](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana) › [Non-dualist Vedānta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita) › [Systematic treatises](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra) › [Establishment of Brahman](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi) › 3.74 # Establishment of Brahman 3.74 Brahmasiddhi 3.74 - **Language:** Sanskrit ### [3.74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.74) atrāhuḥ --- na pramāṇāvagamyatāyā anyā kācana sattā / tathā hi --- yat pramāṇenāvagamyate tatra ‘asti'; iti vyavahāro laukikānām viparyaye ‘nāsti'; iti / na khalvanyaḥ sadasadvibhāgaheturlakṣyate / arthakriyābhāvābhāvau cet / na tayorapi pramāṇabhāvābhāvādhīnatvāt / tathā hi --- kārye 'pi sadvyavahāro yadi kāryāntaranibandhanaḥ anavasthā / tasmādante 'pi pramāṇādeva sadvyavahāraḥ tadviparyayāccāsadvyavahāraḥ / evaṃ cedādāveva pramāṇābhāvābhāvanibandhanau sadasadvyavahārau stām / tathā cāstyarthaniṣṭhaṃ vākyaṃ pramāṇāntarāpekṣamevārthaṃ bodhayati pramāṇaviṣayatāyā astyarthatvāt / > On this \[the opponents\] say: > Existence is nothing other than being cognised by a means of valid cognition. > For instance: > When an object is cognised by a means of valid cognition, ordinary people use the linguistic expression “it exists” (asti) with regard to it; in the opposite case, \[they use\] “it does not exist” (nāsti). > Indeed, no other ground for distinguishing between the existent and non-existent is perceived. > If it is argued that it is the presence or absence of causal efficacy, > no, because those two also depend on the presence or absence of a means of valid cognition. > For instance: > If the linguistic and practical usage of “existent” even regarding an effect were grounded on a further effect, there would be an infinite regress. > Therefore, in the final analysis as well, the linguistic and practical usage of “existent” comes only from a means of valid cognition, and the linguistic and practical usage of “non-existent” from its opposite. > If so, right at the beginning, let the linguistic and practical usages of “existent” and “non-existent” be grounded on the presence and absence of a means of valid cognition. > And thus, a statement devoted to the meaning of \[the verb\] “is” (asti) conveys an object only by depending on another means of valid cognition, because being the object of a means of valid cognition is the meaning of \[the verb\] “is”. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.73) - [Next: 3.75](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.75) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi~en-mt.3.74) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.74) · Pramāṇa