Jayanta starts the section of his Nyāyamañjarī dedicated to this topic with the following question:
Is this validity established only in regard to the Vedas |
or is this a hint (dik) for the validity of all other Sacred Texts (āgama)? || (edited by Kataoka 2004)
Even more interesting is the way he spells out the consequences of the second view:
They (Sacred Texts) would all end up being false, since they contradict each other ||
This is exactly the point. How can one accept the simultaneous validity of conflicting statements? One way out is the Advaita Vedānta one, namely to say that all statements are relatively valid, whereas only one's position is ultimately so. But I wonder whether, e.g., a follower of Dvaita, of Sāṅkhya or a Pāśupāta would be content with being just relatively true.