Proof — Verse 1.134

ज्ञाने स्वाभाविके नार्थः शास्त्रैः कश्चन विद्यते ।
धर्मो ज्ञानस्य हेतुश्वेत्तस्याम्नायो निवन्धनम् ॥ १३४ ॥

If knowledge were natural, there would be no purpose whatever in the sastras; if dharma is the cause of knowledge, then tradition is its ground.

Endorsed axioms (each cite is verbatim commentary)

• {"kind": "relation", "name": "hetutvam", "from": "dharma", "to": "jnana"}“grant what the tradition holds: that dharma conditions knowing — the knower's moral-ritual formation is causally upstream of his cognitive reach”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "asraya", "from": "amnaya", "to": "jnana"}“since dharma is not established by unaided reason (1.30), amnayo nibandhanam: tradition is knowledge's ground”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "qualifies_knower", "of": "dharma"}“disciplines do not merely inform; they *qualify the knower*”

Denials

• {"kind": "predication", "name": "svabhavika", "of": "jnana"}“Either the sastras are idle (which practice refutes) or they are load-bearing via dharma (which makes agama foundational)”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "artha_rahita", "from": "sastras", "to": "artha"}“then the sastras are pointless; yet no party to the debate, least of all the naturalist writing books, treats them so”

Rejected readings (refuted by compiled theorems)

• “Knowledge is innate and arises naturally without instruction or tradition.” — Asserts that jñāna is svābhāvika (naturally given), which leads to the false consequence that śāstras are purposeless. The commentary uses this as a reductio: no one, especially not rationalist philosophers, actually treats scriptures as useless.
• “Knowledge can be established by reason alone, without the need for moral-ritual formation.” — Denies that dharma is causally necessary for knowledge. It treats jñāna as self-standing, independent of the knower's moral-ritual preparation. The commentary explicitly rejects this: 'the knower's moral-ritual formation is causally upstream of his cognitive reach'.
• “The scriptures serve only to describe knowledge that is already established by reason, not to ground it.” — Denies that amnāya is the ground (nibandhanam) of jñāna, treating it as merely descriptive rather than foundational. The commentary is explicit: 'since dharma is not established by unaided reason, amnayo nibandhanam: tradition is knowledge's ground'.

Lean module

/- Verse 1.134 — generated from data/contracts/1.134.json. DO NOT EDIT.
   Axiom cites are verbatim commentary quotations, validated by
   tests/test_contracts.py. -/
import VakyaVallari.Adequacy

namespace VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_134

open VakyaVallari

def jnana : Entity := ⟨"jñāna", Sorta.cognition⟩
def svabhavika : Entity := ⟨"svābhāvika", Sorta.property⟩
def sastras : Entity := ⟨"śāstras", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def dharma : Entity := ⟨"dharma", Sorta.manifestation⟩
def amnaya : Entity := ⟨"amnāya", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def artha : Entity := ⟨"artha", Sorta.property⟩

def contract : Contract :=
  { axioms := [ Claim.relation "hetutvam" (Node.ent dharma) (Node.ent jnana)
    , Claim.relation "asraya" (Node.ent amnaya) (Node.ent jnana)
    , Claim.predication "qualifies_knower" dharma ]
  , denials := [ Claim.predication "svabhavika" jnana
    , Claim.relation "artha_rahita" (Node.ent sastras) (Node.ent artha) ]
  , reported := [] }

def accepted : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "hetutvam" (Node.ent dharma) (Node.ent jnana)
    , Claim.relation "asraya" (Node.ent amnaya) (Node.ent jnana) ] }

theorem accepted_adequate : contract.Adequate accepted := by decide

namespace Counterexamples

/- 'Knowledge is innate and arises naturally without instruction or tradition.'
   Why rejected: Asserts that jñāna is svābhāvika (naturally given), which leads to the false consequence that śāstras are purposeless. The commentary uses this as a reductio: no one, especially not rationalist philosophers, actually treats scriptures as useless. -/
def innate_knowledge : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "svabhavika" jnana ] }
theorem innate_knowledge_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate innate_knowledge := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts innate_knowledge = true

/- 'Knowledge can be established by reason alone, without the need for moral-ritual formation.'
   Why rejected: Denies that dharma is causally necessary for knowledge. It treats jñāna as self-standing, independent of the knower's moral-ritual preparation. The commentary explicitly rejects this: 'the knower's moral-ritual formation is causally upstream of his cognitive reach'. -/
def jnana_rational : Entity := ⟨"jñāna-rational", Sorta.cognition⟩
def rational_sufficiency : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.identity jnana jnana_rational ] }
theorem rational_sufficiency_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate rational_sufficiency := by decide
#guard contract.licenses rational_sufficiency = false

/- 'The scriptures serve only to describe knowledge that is already established by reason, not to ground it.'
   Why rejected: Denies that amnāya is the ground (nibandhanam) of jñāna, treating it as merely descriptive rather than foundational. The commentary is explicit: 'since dharma is not established by unaided reason, amnayo nibandhanam: tradition is knowledge's ground'. -/
def sastre_prasanskrit : Entity := ⟨"śāstra-descriptive", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def scriptures_descriptive_only : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "asraya" (Node.ent sastre_prasanskrit) (Node.ent jnana) ] }
theorem scriptures_descriptive_only_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate scriptures_descriptive_only := by decide
#guard contract.licenses scriptures_descriptive_only = false

end Counterexamples

end VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_134