NOTES ON BRAHMASUUTRA - II

[Guest guest]

(This is my second attempt to send it to advaitin - since the first one

bumped while other lists accepted!)

Notes on Brahmasuutra-II

 

2. Anumaana prakaraNam

 

Brahmasuutra being nyaaya prastaanam uses nyaaya or logic to establish the

teachings of the upanishads. The word nyaaya sometimes is translated as

yukti, tarka or logic, and is technically called anumaana or inference.

Since anumaana will be used extensively in the analysis of Brahmasuutra,

one should have a clear idea of what anumaanam is or inference means or

what it involves.

 

2.1 PramaaNa - Means of knowledge

 

Pramaa means valid knowledge and pramaaNa means valid means of knowledge.

In contrast to this, there is bhramaa, meaning illusory knowledge.

Understanding of the nature of pramaaNa becomes important in Vedanta. The

science of knowledge and means of knowledge and the errors in knowledge,

etc., constitute the Science of epistemology. The knowledge of

epistemology helps to understand the ontological aspects, that is the

reality of the objects. Our philosophers have done extensive analysis of

pramaa and bhramaa. Its importance can be recognized in Vedanta, since it

addresses what is real and what is unreal. For example, if I want to know

the Brahman, I need a proper means to know Him, as He is not directly

visible or whatever is that is directly visible cannot be Him. It becomes

important then to know whether the knowledge that I have gained is pramaa,

valid, or bhramaa, invalid, or the means for gaining that knowledge,

pramaaNa, is appropriate for the task or not. This requires an analysis or

understanding of the source and types of errors that can occur in the

knowledge to make sure the means of knowledge to know Brahman is

error-free. A student of science, for example, learns first about the

'parallax error' before he starts correctly measuring the dimensions of an

object. Without that understanding and without applying that understanding

in his measurements, his length measurements could be erroneous. Hence the

need to study the right means of knowledge, more so for Brahma vidya, which

is beyond the human comprehension. In the final analysis a valid

knowledge, pramaa, is the one that can not negated by subsequent

investigations.

 

There are six accepted means of knowledge or pramaaNa - They are

pratyaksha, anumaana, arthaapatti, upamaana, anupalabdi and shabda. Some

philosophers reduce these to three, pratyaksha, anumaana and shabda. The

other three are considered as parts of anumaana itself. Pratyaksha is the

direct perception, particularly through sense organs, the five senses and

sometime mind is included as the sixth, since mind can imagine things from

the past or project things into future which are not directly perceivable

in the present place or time. Each sense organ is very specific - eyes are

means only to see form and color of an object but not to hear sounds from

the object. Like wise each of the indriya-s function within their field of

operation. Thus we make a general rule that each pramaaNa is very specific

to its field of operation. That which cannot be directly perceived by

pratyaksha can be inferred. Hence anumaana becomes an important source of

knowledge for objects that cannot be directly perceived. That which is

beyond sense input and that which cannot be logically inferred, can only be

learned through shabda pramaaNa. An example is the knowledge of heaven or

hell. Shabda includes shaastra, science or scriptures and sometimes aapta

vaakya, statements of the trustworthy. For sanaatana dharma, shruti, which

are Veda-s, form the main or ultimate source of shabda pramaaNa. It is

believed that Veda-s being apourushheya (not authored by humans), they are

free from the defects associated with human authorship. In a general

sense, one can say that they are revelations to the sages who are in

contemplation who assimilated them and passed them on to their disciples by

the word of mouth. Thus they are handed down through generations 'in tact'

and they are called shruti since they are learned by hearing to the

teacher, who heard from his teacher, thus a guru-parampara. Brahmasuutra

relies heavily on anumaana, inference and shabda pramaaNa. We will discuss

here few aspects of anumaana. We may note here that Brahmasuutra is not

apourusheya that is it is authored by human, that is sage Baadaraayana to

present the coherent theme contained in the shruti. It is still an openion

of an author who is well versed in the scriptures and hence cannot be as

valid pramaaNa as the shruti on which it is based. Even when Krishan

teaches Bhagavad Geeta, He refers to the fact that the teaching is not new

but is what the sages have declared in the shrutis - 'R^ishhibhiH bahudaa

geetam ..'. PramaaNa therefore is a valid means of knowledge and for

brahmavidya, shaastras or shabda pramaaNa becomes an ultimate means of

knowledge.

 

2.2 anumaana pramaaNa:

 

If one has to infer something, he should have some basis for inference or

should have some valid data to make some conclusions. The data is gathered

directly or indirectly using pratyaksham or direct perception. One can

never make of an inference without collecting or relying on perceptual

data. (One can use inductive reasoning but for that reasoning to be valid,

it requires subsequent confirmation by perceptual data). If inference is

made without collecting or without having supportive data, the inference

can only be a speculation or imagination. Such a speculative inference

cannot be valid. For example if one wants to infer the age of a moon, he

cannot look at the moon and estimate the age of the moon. He can truly

estimate the age only by anumaana or inference. For that he needs to

collect the requisite data - such as rocks from the moon and study using

carbon dating etc. Using such a valid data one can infer the age of the

moon. However, without any data and by looking at the moon if one

estimates the age of the moon, then it will only be called a speculation

and not inference. Therefore for any anumaana or inference to be valid,

perceptual data is essential.

 

 

2.3 Factors involved in anumaana

 

In tarka shaastra, the anumaana has been extensively studied. Based on

this we conclude that at least four essential factors are involved in any

anumaana. They are as follows: 1. paksha, 2. saadhya, 3. hetu, and 4.

dR^ishhTanta. Taking a famous example of the inference of a fire on the

mountain by seeing the smoke on the mountain, one can express this in

anumaana vaakyam or an inferential statement as

 

"parvataH agnimaan dhuumavatvaat, yathaa mahaanase"

'Mountain is fiery, because it is smokey, just as in the kitchen'

 

In this parvataH or mountain is said to be paksha. The saadhyam is

agnimaan - that is the mountain is fiery. The hetu is that it is smokey

or dhuumavatvaat. Finally dR^ishhTanta is mahaanase, just as in the

kitchen. Thus the total statement is 'mountain is fiery, because it is

smoky, just as in the case of kitchen'.

 

Mountain is said to be paksha, because it is the locus of the discussion.

Mountain is the topic of the discussion and not the fire per se. Why the

discussion about the mountain? - because there is a dispute whether the

mountain is fiery or not. The locus of dispute is therefore not the

fieriness but the mountain, and the topic of discussion is whether the

locus of discussion, the mountain, is fiery or not. Therefore paksha is

always the locus of discussion or debate. >From this debate, some

conclusion has to be arrived at. The paksha has to be visible or known,

otherwise it cannot be a matter of dispute - hence mountain has to be

perceptible or known. The dispute is not about whether the mountain exists

or not, but whether the existing or perceptible mountain is fiery or not

The fieriness of the mountain (the mountain having fire) is not perceptible

and hence the dispute. If the fieriness of the mountain is perceptible then

there is no dispute at all, and anumaana does not enter into picture.

Hence mountain is perceptible but its fieriness is non-perceptible. Since

perceptual method is of no use to establish that the mountain is fiery, we

need an inferential method. Since mountain is visible but not its

fieriness, paksha is always partially visible. We are not proving the

visible part but proving only the invisible part, that is the fieriness of

the mountain, which is invisible. Using a technical language, the dharmi

(mountain) is visible but its dharma (fieriness) is not visible.

 

 

Saadhyam is that the mountain is fiery or it has fire. This conclusion is

not perceptually available or directly provable. Hence saadhyam is always

'apratyaksham', while paksha is always partially pratyaksham. Hetu is

dhuumavatvaat - the mountain is smoky. To be more precise, one cannot just

say 'smoke' is the reason or hetu, because if the smoke is somewhere else,

one cannot infer that the mountain has fire. One cannot infer that

mountain is fiery because there is smoke in the kitchen. Then it is the

kitchen that is fiery and not the mountain. Hence one cannot say merely

smoke is the hetu. The correct statement is smoke in the mountain is the

hetu or smokiness of the mountain is the hetu just as the fieriness of the

mountain is the saadhyam. The hetu, the smokiness of the mountain, is

pratyaksham or perceptible. Thus of the three, paksha and hetu are

pratyaksha and saadhyam is aprathyaksha, invisible.

 

Next is the example or dR^ishhTanta, just as in this case of the kitchen,

where the smoke and the fire are together. Therefore dR^ishhTanta must be

such that one has the experience of both smoke and fire together - to be

precise, they should have invariable concomitance with each other. Thus

dR^ishhTanta provides an example, which both speaker and the listener are

familiar, to show that the fire invariably exists with the smoke. It is

not the other way around that smoke invariably exists with the fire. We

should have atleast one example to show the invariable concomitance of fire

with the smoke. The current example shows whenever there is smoke in the

kitchen there is fire and that is the dR^ishhTanta.

 

Thus to make inference, one requires a basic knowledge of the concomitant

relationship between hetu and saaddhya which is gathered through

perception. Here the basis of the knowledge that one should have, is the

invariable coexistence of smoke along with fire. That is, wherever there

is smoke there is fire. This relationship becomes fundamental for the

inference. Thus 'yatra yatra dhuumaH, tatra tatra agniH' that is 'wherever

there is smoke there is fire' - this knowledge is called vyaapti JNaanam.

This invariable coexistence of fire and smoke is called vyaapti. It

consists of two factors vyaapyam and vyaapakam - 'yatra yatra dhuumaH' is

called vyaapyam and 'tatra tatra agniH' is called vyaapakam. Hence yatra

yatra vyaapyam tatra tatra vyaapakam. The coexistence of vyaapyam with

vyaapakam is called vyaapti and that knowledge is vyaapti JNaanam.

 

Thus in the operation of inference there are two statements - anumaana

vaakyam and vyaapti vaakyam. These are, 'parvataH agnimaan dhuumavatvaat

yatha mahanase' and 'yatra yatra dhumaH tatra tatra agniH', respectively.

The vyaapyam, dhuumaH, in the vyaapti vaakyam becomes hetu in the anumaana

vaakyam and vyaapakam in the vyaapti vaakyam becomes saadhyam in the

anumaana vaakyam. Hence vyaapti vaakyam can be rephrased as 'yatra yatra

hetuH tatra tatra saadhyam'. Only when this statement or vyaapti vaakyam is

proved, then only the anumaana vaakyam is valid. Vyaapti vaakyam, for

example 'where there is smoke there is fire, can be validated only by

perception. Once the vyaapti vaakyam is validated, that can be used to

validate the anumaana vaakyam. This is the basis used even in scientific

investigations. Hetu, the observed data such as the study of the rocks of

the moon, helps a scientist to arrive at the saadhya, the age of the moon.

Hence anumaana or inference is always based on valid or perceptual data.

 

2.4 Limitation of Scientific Logic

 

Another important aspect, which is always taken for granted in scientific

investigations, is the conclusion or inference can only be made about a

specific object if the hetu or the perceptible data is gathered from that

object or entity. For example, one cannot make conclusion about Mars if

the collected data is from the moon. One can speculate about Mars, but

inference is valid only for the moon since data is from the moon. It

appears to be a common sense statement, but is a fundamental requirement

for a valid anumaana, and many a time people argue without realizing that

they are violiting this simple common sense. Thus loci of the data and

inference should pertain to the same object or paksha. If they are

different then that anumaana is illogical or unscientific or speculative at

best. Thus hetu and saadhyam must belong to the same paksha. We can state

this niyama or rule as 'hetu saadhyayoH saamaanaadhi karaNyam'.

>From this we reach an important conclusion. Scientist collects data from

>the observed universe. Thus all the data that is collected, or can be

>collected, are from 'anaatma' or perceptible universe. The data can range

>from as small as sub-atomic particles to as huge as the clusters of

>galaxies, but all belong to 'anaatma'. Hence paksha for all scientific

>investigations is 'anaatma' or perceptible universe. One cannot collect

>data from aatma - since we know from scriptures that aatma is 'ashabdam

>asparshham aruupyam avyayam tathaa rasam nityam agandham ..' - aatma is

>essentially unobservable. Hence all the observed data deal with

>'anaatmaa'. Hence if scientific reasoning is used, all the scientific

>conclusions can only be about 'anaatma' and not about 'aatma'. Thus we

>reach an important conclusion that using scientific observations one can

>not arrive at any conclusions about 'aatma' because of the following

>niyama or rule that 'hetu saadhyayoH saamaanaadhi karaNaym'. Hence the

>entire scientific reasoning is called 'loukika anumaanam', dealing with

>'anaatma JNaanam' or 'aparaa vidya' alone. Thus 'loukika anumaana has no

>access to 'aatma vidya'. The Upanishads declare, 'naishaa tarkena

>matiraapaneya' - don't hope to arrive at aatma JNaanam through the

>scientific process of reasoning or anumaanam or logic because it has no

>access. It is similar to trying to 'hear' through the 'eyes'. It amounts

>to abuse or misuse of the pramaaNam. In Brahmasuutra itself there is

>suutra to establish this - 'tarkasya apratishhTaanaat' that is tarka or

>logic can never finally prove anything with regard to aatma.

 

2.3. Shaastriiya anumana

 

Then question is how or where anumaana or logic is used by shaastram - what

is the shasstriiya anumaanam which is used in Brahmasuutra that is

different from loukika anumaanam or scientific reasoning? Loukika

anumaanam is based on the perceptual based data. For any anumaana 'valid

data' is important and based on which inference can be made. Therefore

shaastriiya anumaanam also involves data collection. The difference

between loukika and shaastriiya or aloukika is only with reference to the

source of the data. Scientific observations or loukika data are important

for loukika anumaanam. For shaastriiya anumaana, since we are dealing with

aatma, we cannot collect data from anaatma, that is, through observations

or by perception. The data can only be collected from shaastram itself.

Therefore it is shaastra based data collection. Hence all shaastriiya

anumaanam-s used in Brahmasuutra are based on the data collected from

shaastram only.

 

Implication of this is that we must first accept that shaastram is the

means for collecting the data required for shaastriiya anumaanam, just as a

scientist accepts the observations as a means for collecting data for

loukika anumaanam. Once a scientist accepts the observations are correct,

he does not question anymore the validity of the data, he only questions

the conclusions that can be arrived at using the data. Sometimes different

theories are put forth to explain the same data. The theories can be

incorrect but not the observations. This statement becomes little bit

shakey as we go into quantum mechanics. Even the scientists are beginning

to question now the validity of the perceptual data to gain the knowledge

of the universe - 'do I see because there is a thing or is there a thing

because I see' - akin to the questions raised in Advaita concerning the

creation in terms of sR^ishhTi-dR^ishhTi or dR^ishhTi-sR^ishTi.

 

When it comes to shaastra anumaana, all the aastika darshhana-s have

accepted that shaastra is a valid source for collecting data, which cannot

be disputed. Just as in scientific inference, what one can dispute is the

conclusion arrived at from the data but not about the data itself.

Advaita, VishishhTaadvaita and Dvaita are conclusions arrived at based on

the sastric statements - one can question these conclusions but not the

shaastric statements since they are accepted as valid data, therefore

cannot be questioned. Without valid data no anumaana can have a basis.

One can have speculations or beliefs without data, but for anumaanam valid

data are essential. Since for shaastriiya anumaanam the hetu is based on

shaastram, that requires a basic assumption that one must be 'aastika',

that is accept shaastra as valid means of knowledge. For a 'naastika'

person, that is those who do not accept that shaastra is a valid means of

knowledge or pramaaNa, Brahmasuutra which is based on shaastriiya anumaana

is of no use.

 

 

2.4 Where loukika anumaana is used on shaastra-s?

 

This does not mean loukika anumaana or perception based reasoning is not

there in Brahmasuutra. The application of it is different. Loukika

anumaana or scientific reasoning is used not to establish Vedanta because

of the above stated objections. Loukika anumaanam can not prove Vedantic

teaching since loukika anumaana deals with data from anaatma and Vedantic

teaching is related to aatma. It is equally important to recognize that

loukika anumaana cannot disprove Vedantic teaching either since it is not

accessible to loukika anumaanam. But some philosophers, particularly

naastika daarshhanika-s used loukika anumaanam to disprove Vedanta. It is

immediately clear from the above understanding that they have used loukika

anumaana wrongly in trying to disprove Vedanta. That implies that there is

some fallacy in their inference when they use loukika anumaana which is

based on anaatma to disprove aloukika vishayam or entity. In sadhana

panchakam Shankara says:

 

vaakyaarthashca vichaaryataam shrutisiraH pakshH samaashriiyataam

dustarkaat suviramyataam shrutimataH tarkonusandhiiyataam|

 

Use of loukika anumaanam in Vedantic field, Shankara calls it as dus tarkaH

or sushhka tarkaH. The proper tarka or reasonings should be scriptural

data based.

 

Therefore a Vedaantin uses loukika anumaana only to show the fallacy of the

loukika anumaana used by other philosophers. Thus Brahmasuutra uses

loukika anumaanam not to prove Vedanta but to disprove other philosophies

that use loukika anumaana in their arguments against Vedanta. Thus loukika

anumaana is used in Brahmasuutra not to prove Vedanta is logical but to

prove Vedanta is not illogical. The truth is Vedanta is neither logical

nor illogical, it is beyond the realm of logic.

 

There is a second use for loukika anumaanam. The philosophers of the

naastika darshhanams, since they do not believe in the shaastra, use the

loukika anumaana to arrive at the truth of the aatma or the truth of the

world. A Vedantin wants to establish that the truth can never be arrived

at using loukika anumaana. To accomplish that he uses similar loukika

anumaana to disprove or dismiss all the conclusions of the naastika

daarshanika-s. This is because shaastriiya anumaana cannot be used for

naastika-s as they do not accept shaastra as the pramaaNa. Hence Vedantin

uses loukika anumaana to disprove all the naastika philosophies. Thus

limitations of loukika anumaana or scientific reasoning should be

understood when applied to Vedantic knowledge. It is said that

 

achintyaaH khalu ye bhaavaaH natamstarkena yojayet|

apratishhTita tarkena kastiirNassamshayaambudhim|

 

In the creation there are many things which are beyond logic and science.

To expect everything to fall within the scientific logic is to show

shortsightedness. Every scientist must be humble enough to understand that

there are things which are beyond the scope of science. Hence one should

not apply the scientific logic to those that are beyond logic. There can

be always a person who has superior intellect and who can provide a logic

superior to a previous one. Hence by using the logic improperly

(apratishhTita tarkena) no one has solved or gone beyond the ocean of

doubts. That is, the problem can never be resolved beyond any doubt.

 

Hence limitation of scientific logic or loukika anumaanam in Brahma vidya

should be understood. It is used in Brahmasuutra only to establish that

Vedanta is not illogical and to disprove all the naastika systems of

philosophies such as Jainism, Buddhism etc., which do not accept the

validity of Veda as pramaaNa, but never to establish the validity of

Vedanta philosophy, per sec. Vedantic conclusions are arrived at using

only shaastriiya anumana or aloukika anumaana.

 

End of anumaana prakriya.

>From the next topic on we will dive into Shankara Bhaasya starting with

>adhyaasa bhaashhya which forms an introduction to his bhaashhya.

 

Questions on Notes II:

 

These questions are for those who are studying the Brahmasuutra along with

me on the internet.

 

 

Try to answer the following questions without seeing the notes to check

your understanding. After answering go back and study the notes to cross

check your answers.

 

1. What are pramaa, bhramaa, and pramaaNa? What are the six pramaaNas?

 

 

2. What are the four factors needed in any anumaana pramaaNa?

 

3. Among the four factors what comes under pratyaksha and what under

apratyaksha? Where does paksha belong?

 

4. What is a vyaapti vaakyam and what is its role in anumaana?

 

5. What does the statement 'hetu saadhyayoH saamaanaadhi karaNyam' means?

How does that establish that scientific logic has no access to Brahmavidya?

 

6. Where exactly then loukika anumaana used in Brahmasuutra?

 

This ends the anumaana prakaraNam.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623