oldchakra.com

Sources of Knowledge
by Bhakta Robert Newman

Srila Jiva Goswami has described three fundamental pramanas, or sources of knowledge, by which we can endeavor to understand ourselves, the world, and God. These are pratyaksha (direct experience), anumana (logical reasoning), and sabda (revealed knowledge, or scripture). It is significant that all three are stated by Jiva Goswami to be valid means of acquiring knowledge. Sometimes we hear that because the senses of a conditioned soul are imperfect, pratyaksha and anumana are useless. This is not the case. All three pramanas have their place. It follows that we cannot reject pratyaksha and anumana if our aim is to attain complete knowledge. Two questions may arise: First, what is the valid use of these pramanas? Second, how should contradictions between pratyaksha and anumana, or between anumana and sastra, be resolved?

Direct experience (pratyaksha) means the awareness of our sense perceptions, our emotions, and our intuition. In other words, the awareness of what we are conscious of automatically, without thinking or hearing about it. This is the fundamental pramana. Many forms of life exist that don't rely on logical reasoning (anumana), and many human beings don't rely on scripture (sabda), but life without direct experience is meaningless.

In fact, pratyaksha is fundamental at every level of existence. Krishna states in Bg. 9.2 that realization of transcendental knowledge is by direct perception, pratyakshavagamam. This is direct perception via purified senses, as distinguished from material sense perception. In the ultimate perfectional stage, the divine lila itself, Krishna's eternal associates don't deal in logical arguments and scriptural quotations; rather, they perceive the Absolute Truth directly and they intuitively express perfect love in their respective moods. This is perfect pratyaksha.

Logical reasoning (anumana) is the special characteristic and prerogative of the human form of life, although some lower species may also possess it to a rudimentary degree. Without it, one is simply an animal. The faculty of anumana is what we primarily mean when we speak of a person's "intelligence." It is the ability to draw conclusions, to see past appearances, and to communicate knowledge to others. It is obviously important in material existence, but more significantly for our purposes, it is an indispensable faculty in sadhana, for reasons which will be made clear shortly.

Can logical reasoning alone take a person to spiritual life? Not as we understand spiritual life in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. By logical reasoning alone we can negate the material conception of life, but we can go no further. We will end up with some philosophy resembling Buddhism, Mayavada, Idealism, or others, but we can never discover the Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, by this means. As affirmed by all Vaishnava acaryas, the guidance of scripture (sabda) is absolutely essential. Scripture is the manifestation of absolute (spiritual) knowledge in the material world.

Is scripture alone sufficient to take a person to spiritual life? No, and that's the main point of this discussion. Most obviously, scripture contains apparent conflicts and can be interpreted in many ways, and this is the province of anumana. In the Mahabharata, Vana-parva, Srila Vyasadeva states that right reasoning is that by which we find out the true sense of a scriptural passage, by removing all conflicts between it and what precedes and follows it. Thus the author of the Vedas himself confirms that anumana is required in order to properly understand sastra, and that a literal, piecemeal reading is not what is required.

Apart from this is the fact that the spiritual quest is highly personal. Especially in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, where the individuality of each living entity is most strongly affirmed, it is clear that sadhana is an individual process, at least a little bit different for everybody, and sometimes very different depending on circumstances. Scripture, even when properly interpreted, deals mostly in general terms. It doesn't present a detailed roadmap and directions customized for each individual jiva that has ever existed or will ever exist. Even the complete Veda on the heavenly planets is not as voluminous as that. It is therefore necessary to use the logical faculty to determine how a particular scriptural injunction is to be applied by each person in each concrete situation.

But isn't that the function of the guru? To some extent, yes. The guru presents the message of scripture according to the time, place, and circumstances in which he lives and preaches. He also gives specific, personal advice to individual disciples, as for example Srila Prabhupada did in his letters and conversations. But sadhana has been compared, quite realistically, to walking on a razor's edge. This means that it requires constant application of intelligence and discrimination. Even if a guru has only one disciple, it would be impossible for him to guide that person each and every moment. What to speak of a guru who has dozens or hundreds of disciples?

But even if constant, personalized attention could somehow be given to each disciple, it would not be effective in developing the disciple's spiritual life. If the guru is to be considered successful, then ultimately the disciple must become a guru himself, and provide guidance to others in turn. Therefore the guru rightfully expects and trains the disciple to think for himself. It is natural that as the disciple progresses in spiritual life, he will more and more use his developed power of logical reasoning to answer his own questions and doubts, and will require less personal attention from the guru. If, out of laziness or misunderstanding, the disciple doesn't develop in this way, he will be simply a burden to the guru, and never become qualified to be a guru himself. For that matter, he will not become Krishna conscious at all.

To summarize the discussion so far, pratyaksha is the very ground of conscious existence in every stage of life, both material and spiritual, while anumana is the faculty which elevates a living being to human existence and enables him to take advantage of sabda to elevate himself to spiritual life. Anumana and sabda thus work hand-in-hand to purify the mind and senses of the sincere devotee, until finally he can perceive the Absolute Truth directly (perfect pratyaksha) via purified, spiritual senses.

There remains the question of how to resolve apparent contradictions in the knowledge provided by the various pramanas. These contradictions can arise between pratyaksha and anumana, and between anumana and sabda. The former type occurs all the time in material life, while the latter type is particularly important in relation to the Absolute Truth.

As an illustration of the first type of contradiction, a person may look out the window, see the sun shining brightly, and conclude that it's warm outside, but when he goes out he feels that it's cold. His inference was logical, but untrue. Pratyaksha overrides anumana. The opposite relation is also possible, though less common. For example, a person may see an army of rats overrunning his home. However, remembering that he is taking a medication that can cause hallucinations, and that he has never seen a rat in his home before, he reasons that he can't trust his perceptions in this case. Anumana overrides pratyaksha.

What about contradictions between anumana and sabda? For example, sastra and guru (sabda) state that we are one with Krishna, and also that we are different. Taken at face value, this is illogical, since two things cannot be identical and different at the same time. Should sabda override anumana in this case, or should anumana override sabda? In fact, neither one should override the other. To reject sabda in favor of logic is atheism, and will never lead to spiritual understanding. On the other hand, to reject logic that seems to conflict with sabda is nothing but mental sloth, and leads to fanaticism. The correct approach is to strive to reconcile such apparently illogical statements in order to arrive at a higher understanding. In this way the mind becomes purified and spiritualized.

If we use this balanced approach in the present example, our understanding both of our identity with Krishna and our difference from Him will continually deepen via our sincere striving to reconcile the apparent contradiction, neither rejecting sastric statements nor abandoning our logical faculty. If, on the other hand, we do abandon our logical faculty, our understanding will stagnate; and if instead we reject the sastric statements because they make no sense to us, we will be utterly lost.

In conclusion, sabda and anumana are like the two wings of a bird. They must always go hand-in-hand in sadhana. Neither one can be rejected, and neither one should be overemphasized at the expense of the other. Finding this balance is perhaps the greatest challenge a sadhaka faces on the spiritual path.

Hare Krishna,

Robert Newman

Go to the “Philosophy Page”

HOME

Philosophy

You are here