epistemology and hermeneutics

[Guest guest]

Nowadays there are innumerable wrangles over what it means to follow Srila

Prabhupada, and it is even being questioned whether we should follow him at

all. However, everyone is speaking at cross purposes because everyone has a

different understanding of how understanding should be arrived at.

 

Before attempting to discuss various philosophical points, first a clear

system of epistemology and hermeneutics has to be established. The first

task of all "real" (i.e., systematic) philosophers is to define their

methodology. In doing so, Vedanta philosophers generally incorporate

principles expounded by the Nyaya and Mimamsaka schools. Madhva especially

formulated a philosophical system so precise as to be practically

undefeatable. Non-Vedic philosophers also attempt to isolate certain

axiomatic principles of discerning knowledge, upon which they develop their

various theories.

 

Practically, for members of the Hare Krishna movement today, this means that

we have to investigate and define how we understand guru, sadhu, and sastra.

For instance, how to distinguish between eternal injunctions and time,

place, and circumstance adjustments. Understanding which of the various

injunctions in sastra are applicable in any particular time, place, and

circumstance. Defining levels of importance of various sastric injunctions.

Etc.

 

This all requires fine, purified intelligence. We need acaryas. Any amount

of wrangling is insignificant before the conclusive understandings of true

acaryas, persons directly inspired by Krsna. In the physical absence of such

acaryas, sober, sincere, learned brahmanas should come together, discuss,

pray, and come up with answers. This is the Vedic system; not that there is

"free speech" and everyone who has read half a page of Bhagavad-gita asserts

themselves as an authority.

 

But before even brahmanas can discuss, they have to have a mutual and clear

understanding of epistemology and hermeneutics. Without that, there cannot

be systematic dialectic exchanges and therefore there cannot be a clear

conclusion.