Six Pramanas by Pujyaswami Atmanandaji

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Poojya Swami Atmanandaji, the founder of Vedanta Mission studied under

the guidance of Swami Chinmayanandaji and he is a great Vedantin.Let

me take this opportunity to thank Swamiji for granting permission to

post this excellent article on Six Pramanas. A clear understanding of

the Pramanas will be quite helpful for greater appreciation of Advaita

Vedanta Philosophy.

..

(Source: http://www.vmission.org/vedanta/articles/index.htm)

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Six Pramanas by Pujyaswami Atmanandaji

 

……… Any knowledge of even the existence of an object takes

place in our minds. The mind becomes conscious of the various

`objects' by the various `faculties' available to it. The very fact

the mind has various faculties at its disposal shows that

knowledge of different objects call for taking resort of diffrent

means. It is extremely important that we take resort to the

right means, otherwise even the existence of that object will

not be evident to us. These `means of knowledge' are called

Pramanas. Before we jump into the bandwagon of people who

want to know `all the different facets' of this beautiful blessing

called life, it is extremely important that we first know which all

faculties or rather means of knowledge are at our disposal.

……… The teachers of Advaita Vedanta philosophy have gone

into this aspect of the process of knowledge in great detail,

and have enumerated `six' pramanas. Which pramana has to be

resorted to & also when, is decided by the situation and the

nature of object concerned. These six means of knowledge are

Pratyaksha (Perception), Anumana (Inference), Upamana

(Comparison), Arthapatti (Postulation), Anupalabdhi

(Non-apprehension), and Sabda (Verbal Testimony). These are

the six valid means of knowledge available to us, and we

consciously or unconsciously use them too in our day to day

life to `know' various things which come our way. It is

extremely imporatnt for us to understand each of these

pramanas properly, so that we dont start using the wrong

means to know a particular kind of object. This is specially so

when we are inquisitive to know the Self, the Atman, which is

the ultimate, transcendental, infinite, non-dual truth refered to

as the Brahman in the Upanishads. Proper understanding of

Pramanas not only facilitates channelising of our energy

properly but also culminates in the attainment & fulfillment of

the objective.

1. Pratyaksha : Pratyaksha or Perception implies direct,

immediate cognition. There are two kinds of direct perception,

external and internal. The `external' perception implies cognition

of sense objects, namely - sound, touch, form, taste and smell

by our five sense organs (ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose).

When the sense organs contact their respective objects then

the Pratyaksha knowledge takes place. The `internal' perception

means the direct & immediate cognition of pain, pleasure, love,

hate, anger, knowledge or ignorance of various objects etc. in

& by our minds. The Acharyas elaborately reveal that in any

direct perception, the awareness existing at the level of mind

of the person desirous to know an object, as though flows out

through his respective sense organ and envelops the available

& illumined object. This awareness is thereafter presented to

the knower in the mind as a thought of the object, who then

`knows' the object. The entire process is extremely fast and

implies the involvement of both the mind and the sense organs

in all direct perception. Sitting in one place the knower knows

even far off objects directly, provided they come in the range

of our sense organs. The immediacy of direct cognition is the

intrinsic characteristic of perceptual knowledge, and does not

merely depend on the organs of perception.

……… In all direct perception the knowledge is extremely clear

but its scope is very limited. What we can directly see not only

constitutes an extremely small iota of the wide spectrum of

things existing in this universe, but many a times that which is

directly cognised is far from truth. We have an extremely

beautiful creation right in front of our eyes, but we dont see a

creator directly, but as there cant be an effect without a

cause so we have to take resort of some other valid means of

knowledge to know that inevitable creator. So also regarding

the intenal perceptions, the thoughts are gushing through our

minds, but we dont directly see their cause, which has to be

inevitably there. Moreover, we directly see a rising sun but

astonishinghly our deeper probes reveal that the sun never

rises. Thus come the great neccessity of other means of valid

knowledge.

2. Anumana : Literally translated the word anumana means

`knowing after'. It means the method by which knowledge is

derived from another knowledge. It is an indirect, mediate

knowledge. We have knowledge of an invariable relationship

between two things and on that basis while seeing one we

deduce the presence the other. Thus anumana refers to the

logical process of gaining knowledge. The knowledge thus

gained is called inferential knowledge or the logical deduction.

The nearest word to anumana is inference. We say it is nearest

word simply because of a slight difference between the exact

process of logical deduction in Eastern thought as compared to

the Western system of logical deduction.

……… Perception forms the basis of anumana, but at the core

of all inferential knowledge lies the knowledge of vyapti or the

`invariable concommitance', the invariable relationship between

the two objects. We know on the basis of our perceptual

knowledge that wherever there is smoke there is fire (the

opposite however may not be true). Having known the

invariable connection between the two we can logically deduce

the presence of fire whenever we see smoke. This is anumana.

……… In all inferential knowledge there are definite steps to be

followed. The following steps are accepted for logical deduction

of knowledge by the teachers of Advaita Vedanta :

a. Perceptual evidence - We see smoke on the hill

b. Invariable concommitance - Wherever there is smoke there

is fire, as seen in kitchen.

c. Conclusion - Therefore the hill has fire

3. Upamana : The Mimamsakas & Advaitins define Upamana as

the process by which the knowledge of A's similarity to B is

gained from the perception of B's similarity to A, which has

been seen elsewhere. This methodology is seen as distinct from

mere inference, and is thus accepted as a valid mediate

method of knowledge. For example, a person who has seen his

cow at home goes to a forest and sees a gavaya (a wild cow

but without dewlap). The person sees the similarity `This

gavaya is like my cow', and on this basis also concludes the

opposite to be equally true, that `My cow is like this gavaya'.

Thus by upamana he gains the knwledge of his cow's similarity

to the gavaya from the perception of the gavaya's similarity to

his cow.

……… Upamana is a distinct means of knowledge, and cannot be

clubbed under anumana, because we cannot have a universal

proposition that a thing is similar to whatever is similar to it.

Such a knowledge cannot be gained without the observation of

the two similar things together. The Advaitins use this method

of kowledge by comparison & similarity to logicaly communicate

the nature of Brahman and various other things. Brahman is

said to be resplendent as the sun. By percieving the luminosity

of the sun, the seeker can appreciate the terms like the

self-luminosity of Brahman.

4. Arthapatti : This means postulation, supposition or

presumption of a fact. It is a distinct valid method of mediate

knowledge. It is in fact a method of assumption of an unknown

fact in order to account for a known fact that is otherwise

inexplicable. The classic example of this method of knowledge is

a fat person A says that he never eats in the day, then we can

easily postulate that he eats in the night, for the simple reason

that without this assumption his fatness & also his getting

fatter cannot be explained. Arthapatti can either be from what

is seen or from what is heard. The use of this method in

Vedanta is in assuming rightly the implications of Upanishadic

statements. Like in the statement `The knower of Self

transcends grief'. Here we see that merely knowledge destroys

grief, then it can be assumed without any doubt, that all grief

has to be false then alone it can be destroyed merely by

knowledge. So this is assumption.

5. Anupalabdhi : The Advaitins and the Mimasaka school of

Kumarila Bhatt believe Anupalabdhi to be a seperate

independent pramana. It literally means non-apprehension.

Non-existence of a thing is apprehended by its non-perception.

By not seeing a jar in a place one knows that it is not there.

We use this method of knowledge also very often, and this is

evident from statements like : `There is no teacher in the

class-room', There is no sound here', `This flower has no

fragrence' etc. It may seem paradoxical that non-apprehension

of a thing is a means to the apprehension of its non-existence

(abhava). But in fact both non-perception as well as

perception serve as a means to get various knowledge, for the

simle reason that the knower is conscious of both. They lead to

positive & negative experiences. Knowledge of non-existence of

a thing can be on the basis of direct or indirect knowledge. It

could either be on the basis of our immediate non-perception of

a thing or even on the basis of inference or verbal testimony.

In the former the knowledge is immediate while in the latter

case, which is applicable in suprasensual objects, the

knowledge of abhava of a thing is mediate.

6. Sabda : Sabda pramana is verbal testimony. It is also called

`apta-vakyas' (statement of a trust-worthy person', and agama

(authentic word). A verbal statement, uttered or written, is

man's most potent instrument for transmitting knowledge. We

learn mostly by means of words. An oral or written message is

a universal mode of communication. We constantly get various

information, direction & knowledge through words. Right from

school days to this moment we use words as a valid & effective

means of bringing about awareness of things, ideas or

emotions. Books, magazines, newspaper, letters,

conversations, chats, radio, TV, movies, songs etc. etc. All use

or depend on words. We cannot do without verbal testimony.

……… A verbal statement conveying valid knowledge must have

an authentic source which must be free from defects. Only a

competent person possesed of knowledge can impart accurate

knowledge. Such a knowledge needs no verification, unless

ofcourse there is doubt about its reliability. If all that we know

from verbal testimony were to await confirmation, then the bulk

of human knowledge would have to be regarded as baseless.

Among the Western philosophers only a few recognize verbal

testimony as a valid & independent means of knowledge, but a

majority of Indian philosophers do. Those who do not accept it

as an independent method of knowledge do realise its great

role but simply club it along with other means like inference

etc. The process of verbal knowledge cannot be clubbed with

inference because it does not involve any knowledge of

invariable concommitance as is the case in inference. So it is a

category by itself. It is interesting and also worthwhile to go

into the exact process of derivation of meaning from a

sentence. At times there is substantive-adjective relationship

between the subject & predicate of the sentence and at times

there may not be such a realtionship, but a non-relational

entity could form their locus. Such understanding becomes

important when it comes to derivation of meaning form

sentences like `Tat Tvam Asi' (That thou art). Lot of work has

been done in regards to derivation of meaning of a sentence,

specially by the Mimamsakas. Only that combination of words is

called a sentence when four factors are taken care of. They

are expectancy (akanksa), consistency (yogyata), contiguity

(asatti), and knowledge of the purport (tatparya-jnanam).

Understanding of all this facilitates us to understand why verbal

testimony is an independent means of knowledge very different

from inference etc.

……… Having known these `pramanas', when a qualified

`pramata' (knower) takes resort of these and turns his focus to

`prameya' (object of knowledge) then `prama' or valid

knowledge is instantaneously brought about. The knowledge

brought about by any valid means of knowledge is alone valid

knowledge, it does not & can not depend on verification by

other means, because the other means have no reach to that.

The right knowledge does have some difinite indications and

thus validity of a means is confirmed by the perception of

those indications in the pramata. So instead of wasting ones

time trying to see a form by our nose we should rather open

our eyes and fulfill our aspiration. This alone is the objective of

understanding the various means & methods of knowledge at

our disposal.