Question : If the Vedic scriptures are for the ignorant, then how can they be considered valid means of knowledge?
Answer : In Vedanta, the meaning of "pramaana" needs to be understood. "Pramaa" means unobstructed knowledge. The instrument of that unobstructed knowledge is called pramaana. Example : the instrument for knowledge of form is the eye because the ear, nose etc. cannot acquire that knowledge which the eye can, not can they obstruct it. In the same manner, the ear is the means for verbal knowledge, the nose for olefactory knowledge, skin for sensual knowledge, and nose for taste knowledge. All these five are called immediate means (pratyaksha pramaana). Speech, touch, form, taste and smell, the objects of the means, are called "prameya". That sense-owner, the I-ness (aham artha) that imbibes these objects through the immediate means is called the "pramaataa", the knower.
On the basis of the immediate means, inference (anumaana) and simile (upamaaana) are means. Inference follows immediate means and simile is based in immediate means. Fire is inferred after seeing smoke in a forest, and the simile of fire becomes the object of immediate knowledge. Similarly, "Mohan is a lion", this simile leads us to knowledge of Mohan's courage, because the courage of the lion was imbibed earlier through immediate means.
Verbal means (shabha pramaana) are employed in those objects which cannot be known by immediate means, inference or simile. For example, "Lord Varuna resides in the pot", that deity which is made known by this verbal statement cannot be known through any other means.
Within verbal means, history-oriented people accept historical means (eitihaasika pramaana) which gives the knowledge that such and such thing happened. Mythology-oriented people accept possibility means (sambhava pramaana). "This happened or this will happen", not this knowledge, but "this can happen", such knowledge comes from mythology.
Theatre-oriented people accept performance as a means (cheshta pramaana) because artists in a play convey many unspoken ideas to others using performance or gestures alone.
The followers of Meemaamsaa accept two other means of knowledge : (circumstantial inference) arthaapatti and (non-perception inference) anupalabdhi. These are children of inference alone. In these, inference happens on the basis of immediate as well as verbal knowledge. Circumstantial inference reveals the unspoken aspect of the factual meaning. Non-perception inference reveals all negative or absence-oriented knowledge, like the knowledge of the absence of a pot. In this example, the non-perception inference is based on immediate means. But in deep sleep, all that is seen is absent, it cannot be proven through immediate means. Therefore, deep sleep is an example of non-perception inference based on verbal means.
An example of circumstantial inference based on immediate means is as follows. Assume that someone said "Sohan is overweight but he does not eat anything during the day". The hidden meaning of the statement is that Sohan certainly eats in the night. This knowledge comes from the circumstantial inference in the statement's meaning. An example of circumstantial inference based on verbal knowledge follows. "Neha naanaasti kinchana". The negation of variety here is only possible when variety is taken to be illusory, and non-variety as reality. Therefore the knowledge of illusory nature of variety and the reality of non-variety happens through circumstantial inference.
Followers of traditions accept the statements of their leaders as means of knowledge. These are called credible means (aapta pramaana). But there are gradations in this kind of means, depending on the stature of the leader. As an example, the Jain tradition accepts three levels of credible means : teerthankar, shaavak and adhyetaa.
The means employed in the Vedas is different than credible means. There are two streams of means in the Vedas : (1) By being the statements of Ishvara, there are means in Vedas and (2) By accurately representing Ishvara, there are means in Vedas. In the first stream, there are rules, edicts and commands. In the second there is communication of the truth, there is light. The first is transactional, the second is transcendental. Rules are not independent, they make the person qualified for the realization of truth. Rules are laid out as per the communication.
Now the question is : What is the means of knowledge of Ishvara who is the root of all creation? It cannot be the senses, since they cannot even provide a complete knowledge of their object, let alone of the non-disconnected complete Ishvara. Ishvara is not the object of one sense, and also not the object of all senses combined. Now if you say that you will know Ishvara using intellectual non-perception, it will not be possible. These inferential-type means will fail since they are not at all based in any knowledge gathered through immediate means.
Now if you saw that you will make your mind so subtle that it will comprehend Ishvara naturally, even that is not possible. First of all, it is difficult to rid the mind of faults such as delusion, carelessness, dullness and deception, in that also we see gradations of the intellect. Then is the intellect the illuminator of Ishvara, or is Ishvara the illuminator of the intellect? It is clear, Ishvara alone illumines the intellect. So finally, how will we come to a conclusion that the entity that we have cognized through the intellect is really Ishvara? That is why when we accept the intellect as a means to know Ishvara, we also have to accept another thing. Only that Ishvara can be known by the intellect which can be ascertained properly through systematic means. This system is Veda.
In this manner, verbal means are the only means for knowing Ishvara. In verbal means the Vedas, in Vedas the wisdom-oriented Upanishadic section, in Upanishads the statements that show the identity of self and brahman (not those that explain them separately), only these are the real means. Even in these, the brahman-shaped thought flow (brahmaakaara vritti) generated by the meaning of the great statements are the means.
Vedanta accepts six means : immediate, inference, simile, circumstantial inference, non-perception inference and verbal. But in reality there are only two means - immediate and verbal. Even in these, the thought flow generated by the senses are the means, not the organs themselves. Words generate thought flow as it is. Therefore, there is only one means - thought flow, whether it is generated by the combination of the senses and objects, or through hearing-contemplation-meditation upon the scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment