2 types of pratyakSa

[Guest guest]

The PPV paper suggested that Gaudiyas do not accept pratyaksa pramana (direct

perception), whereas the Maadhvas do. Part of the confusion is related to

the fact that the term pramana sometimes includes pure perception of the soul

itself and sometimes it does not.

 

Jiva Gosvami grades sabda-pramana above logic and perception (pramana).

However it is clear from context that the pramana here is perception via the

material senses. From Hindu Encounter chp 6, Bhaktivinoda Thakura clarifies

that there are two types of pratyaksa, "Direct perception may be performed by

either the material senses of the soul directly." The perception of the soul

is called sahaja-samadhi and is superior to the sabda-pramana in certain

cases: "The source of the scriptures is self-validating knowledge

(svataH-siddha-j~nAna) which arises in the heart of the living being and must

be considered as God-given.It is the duty of human beings to study the

meanings of the Vedas in the light of all these [scriptural-GS] explanations,

but even after the implementation of all these things, the individual study

of divine knowledge with the help of one's own self-validating knowledge is

an essential requirement because the writers and commentators of the

scriptures are not always absolutely clear. Therefore, the independent

cultivation of self-validating knowledge is always necessary along with the

study of scriptures." Therefore it is clear that Gaudiyas do accept a type

of perception which is superior even to sabda-pramana.

 

Madhva also accepts these two types of pratyakSa: one of the 6 senses

including the mind, and one he calls sAkSI, which is an organ of the self, or

in other words nothing other than the self. He says "With regards to things

presented only on evidence of the scripture (agama), scripture is the only

criterion of truth." However, later he says "Therefore scripture has no

overriding validity where it conflicts with the well-tested pratyaksa;

because in such cases the knowledge arising from sense-perception is the

basis or fundamental ground." (From philosophy of Madhvacarya chp 19)

 

Therefore both systems accept the idea of a type of spiritual perception

which can in certain cases be a superior source of knowledge than

sabda-pramana. The dvaita list members once argued that our scientific

perception of heliocentrism is superior to the Bhagavatam's geocentrism on

the grounds that pratyaksa is higher than sabda.

 

However, the flaw in their argument is that the senses of the scientists have

not been proved to be flawless, nor has the contact of their sense with the

sense objects been shown to be flawless, nor have they concluded with

heliocentrism on the basis of the soul's own perceptive power (saksi). Only

the senses of the soul can give knowledge that may call for a

reinterpretation of scripture.

 

GS