What is reality? We define reality as that which has: 1) physical existence that is perceptible through any of our sense organs (astitva) irrespective of the observer, time or space, 2) is knowable (jneyatwa), and 3) is describable in any language (abhidheyatwa). Anything that violates these conditions is unreal. For example, a mirage is unreal because it has no existence for all observers at all places. Is the above statement not the same as the correspondence theory with a more precise definition? And does it not cover more areas in general than the correspondence theory?
Truth is what is physically observable (sthitisiddha), with a central position based on which the structure is constructed (sahridaya), and has dimensional properties (sashareeree). The opposite is called Anrht. Does it not fulfil the conditions stipulated by the correspondence theory in a much more precise and better way?
As you can see, both reality and truth are not the same thing, but can they be separated? Knowledge is different from both. As you have pointed out, both reality and truth can exist without our knowledge. It is because the conditions for existence of reality and truth do not require our individual knowledge. And whether it exists or not when there is no observer is irrelevant, because it can never be known – knowledge requires a knower.
The definition of knowledge in Western Philosophy as pointed out by you, is too open ended. What is the yardstick for judging what is rational or justified or warranted or true or reliable? Can the content of someone’s opinion change reality or truth? Because of this open-endedness, such controversies like whether true propositions or vice versa will be known or unknown arise. Knowledge is a matter of perception away from the object of perception. Every objects ever evolves in time. But the knowledge about them is time invariant. It is frozen till it is updated. Perception or as you say: propositions that leads to knowledge, can be true (hetu) or false (hetwaabhaasa). Based on that, and not how you define knowledge, the acquired knowledge can be true or false. But as you have pointed out, in the absolute domain, knowledge (pramaa) cannot be false.
Your observation on the intellectual content or context of knowledge in Western philosophy is easy to harmonize. Once you accept that it is based on perception, the next question should be asked: which type of perception? Ocular perception gives information only of form. Tactile perception, auditory perception, smell and taste perception, all give partial information about some aspect of the object. These are mixed in the brain to get a composite picture. That is intelligence. Thus, you say: knowledge must involve an additional INTELLECTUAL processing of those sensory data, which forms OPINIONS (“perceptual beliefs-THAT…”) upon them, presented in a REASONING format”. So, “Do logical rules and principles themselves constitute knowledge?” The answer is NO. The logical rules and principles are accessories or aid (avayava) to knowledge.
When I say: “All types of logic are applied for eliminating doubt”, it includes eliminating doubt on the validity of logic and/or proof itself – be these philosophical or otherwise. In fact that is the first question that must be answered before proceeding further. The answer is, if after applying the methods of logic, the predicted behavior matches the actual behavior in ALL cases for all people at all times, then we must accept those methods of logic as valid. There is no question of infinite regress here. There is nothing like “excessive doubting”. Then it will not be logic, but superstition.
(a) Everyone uses inferential schemes only when he/she thinks that it is valid in the specific context, irrespective of whether such inferences are valid or not in the universal context. Or, as you say: “the mere fact that someone THINKS he or she possesses knowledge does not necessarily imply that he or she really IS possessing genuine knowledge”. However, the difference between “specific context” and “universal context” must be remembered. As I have said earlier, logic is not a determinant of reality by itself – it is a subsidiary or aid to proof. All logic may or may not be the truth depending upon the intention and the level of understanding of the person applying logic. While in ideal cases it is directed at finding reality, it can also be used exclusively to defend one’s position or demolish the opposition, irrespective of the truth content of either.
(b) The word “here” in my statement is important. It was used with reference to “self-critical reasoning”. But this does not mean that there are no universal yard-sticks. We use a five step approach in this regard: 1) statement leading to a postulate (pakshasatwa), 2) corroborative evidence (sapakshasatwa), 3) proof that its opposite is not true (vipakshaasatwa), 4) universality of application (avadhitatwa) – if there are specific or limiting cases, they must be foretold, and finally, 5) all other existing theories or postulates in this regard are wrong (asatpratipakshitwa). After these tests, the theory cannot be wrong.
Is “reality” conformity to what is observable and perceivable? Yes. Is “truth” simply ‘faithfulness’? Faithfulness is steadfastness, constancy, or allegiance; unswerving adherence to a person or thing or to the oath or promise by which a tie was contracted. Truth is faithfulness or invariance in the perception of physically observables, with a central position based on which the structure is constructed, and has dimensional properties. If the same reaction appears in our minds every time we observe or think about something, this faithfulness of perception is the truth. Does consciousness play a part in knowing? It is the only necessary invariant condition. Only conscious beings can know. What’s known simply by “being conscious”? Whatever shows the characteristics of consciousness is “being conscious”. The characteristics of consciousness are: 1) desire to get something that is not available, 2) its opposite – repulsion, 3) efforts to get one’s desire/repulsion fulfilled by application of energy, 4) happiness, when the result of effort is harmonious to one’s memory, 5) distress in the opposite case, and 7) knowledge of the reality of something that is used to plan the response.
There is a danger of being misled in this type of argument. A man is a living being. A tiger is a living being. A bird is a living being. Hence man = tiger = bird is valid only in a limited sense – of being alive. This statement cannot be generalized or extended to other areas. However, if we make man = A, tiger = B and bird = C, and then generalize the statement, we are surely trying to manipulate logic by misrepresentation. This is one reason for the present confusion.
All our feelings and emotions are the outcome of internal conscious functions called desire, which is the limitation on total availability. The form of emotions generated by desire is the mental condition “let it (something or state) be like that (something else)”. It has two variations. The first is internal thought. It has a form: “I will do like this” or “I should have this”. The other is related to others. It has a form: “He should do this” “He should have this”. Language is the transposition of one’s feelings or emotions or desires into another person or system’s mind/CPU using sequential sound or signals. This could be internal thought or expressed through sounds or signs.
Depending upon the geographical variations, the natural language becomes different. Thus, we have to choose a particular language as the “Object language” to study/communicate various fields/desires. The spoken language consists of two components: 1) the first component relates to basic features of the observed and 2) its deformations or transformations depending upon the requirement. These may be called as “Sentence Logic” and “Predicate Logic” respectively. While the basic features of such language logic do not change, in different contexts it may appear to convey different meanings, which necessitates giving different names for the same thing (synonym). Alternatively it may appear as the same in different situations, when it is indicated by a common name (thesaurus). The deformations are dealt with by prescribed formulae in grammar. When such grammar is used to talk about an object language, it is called a metalanguage. It is identical with and includes the object language.
When the language is compact and gives more emphasis to the contextual meaning over literal meaning, it is called a speech form (sentence). A formal language is a set of sentences generated by rules of formation from a vocabulary. When the language is harmoniously flowing and gives more emphasis to literal symmetry without losing the context, it is called literature.