Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge-1

[Guest guest]

Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge-1

Introduction:

 

As I was studying and trying to understand Vedanta Paribhaasha (VP) of

Dharmaraja

Advarindra (DA) that Micheal constantly refers to, Dennisji brought to my

attention the

book, “Methods of Knowledge” by Swami Satprakashanda, and in my discussions on

Saaskhii

swaruupam, Shree Devanathanji also brought to my attention about the Chapter on

KuuTastadiipaH in Panchadasi by Shree Vidyaranya. I feel I am blessed from

different

directions to make me understand how the knowledge takes place as per advaita

Vedanta.

As usual, I tend to put my understanding in writing for my own benefit, and (as

usual) I

am posting it as well. The writing helps me to crystallize my understanding and

also for

others to see. I request those who are interested to feel free to comment on my

understanding. Of course as usual, I try to be stubborn in defending my rational

ignorance! These series may be considered as add-on to the Analysis of the Mind

series

since mind is obviously involved in gaining the knowledge - whether objective

knowledge

or knowledge of the subject. I will be following closely Vedanta Paribhaasha but

explaining in the way I understand and interpret. I will try to point out where

I may

deviate from the concepts presented in VP. DA was around 1600AD. There were

several

others before him who formulated the epistemological issues in Advaita Vedanta.

Swami

Satprakashananda notes that there are some differences in the interpretations of

how

Knowledge takes place in VP and in other texts. Epistemological issues are at

vyavahaarika level and therefore any of these differences do not compromise the

advaitic

truths in Vedanta.

 

The purpose of the inquiry into the Epistemological issues, as DA emphasizes in

this

introduction to VP, is to gain the knowledge of Brahman, knowing which there is

no return

back to the transitory world. Hence understanding of the process of how

knowledge takes

place in the mind is essential to separate what is transitory and what is

permanent –

essentially nitha-anitya vastu viveka essential for Vedantins. This will help

in

meditation to shift from that which is transitory to that which is permanent,

when we try

to ‘visualize’ that because of which we have the capacity to visualize.

 

Everyone has some understanding of what knowledge means. When we come to know

things that

we did not know before, we say that we now have the knowledge of them. To put

this more

technically, ignorance that is covering the knowledge of those objects is now

removed and

we have now dis-covered the existence of those objects. Implication of this is

that

knowledge is eternal and self-evident, but gets revealed when the ignorance that

appears

to cover the object of knowledge is removed. That is the discovery of the truth

about

those objects. Scientists only ‘discover’ the laws and do not invent them.

Essentially

they are removing the covering of ignorance of the objects or laws. It is not

that

‘ignorance’ is some kind of shield coving the knowledge, but it is more like a

pitch

darkness covering the knowledge of all the objects in that dark room. When I

turn the

light switch on, assuming that electric power is behind the switch,

instantaneously

knowledge of all objects that are illumined by that light takes place. Until the

light is

turned on, the knowledge of objects is ‘as though’ covered by the darkness in

that room.

This analogy is used extensively to appreciate how knowledge takes place. We

will follow

this through out our discussion. Interestingly, I say there is no light and it

is too

dark for me to see anything. I need a light to illumine the objects that I want

to see.

Without turning the light switch on, I could not see any objects since darkness

is

enveloping all objects. This is our normal experience.

 

In spite of pitch darkness I could still ‘see’ two ‘things’ in that room! For

one thing,

I could see darkness because of which I could not see anything else. The second

is I

could see myself since I am aware of my own existence, wherever I am. Darkness

is an

object of my awareness. In what light I could see darkness? In fact, I cannot

turn the

light switch on to see the darkness, can I? The darkness disappears as soon as I

turn the

light switch on. The darkness and external light are opposite to each other.

Since I

need light to see anything, in what light I could see darkness? Since I know it

is dark

implies that I could see the darkness or I am aware of darkness. That light

because of

which I can see even the darkness, that light is not opposite to darkness. That

is the

light of consciousness that illumines the darkness too so that I am aware of the

darkness

in the room. That it is dark in the room is also an object of knowledge. It will

be

interesting to enquire later how the object of knowledge of darkness takes place

in the

mind. Besides the darkness, in the same light of consciousness, I could see

myself too

to say that I am there in that dark room, where I cannot see ‘anything’ else.

Darkness

can cover everything but I can never be covered by the darkness outside. I am a

self-effulgent, self-existent entity. I do not need light also to be aware of

myself. I

am always aware of myself except in the deep sleep state. What covers the

knowledge of

myself in the deep sleep is also an interesting question to be explored. I am

the light

of consciousness not only that illumines myself since I am aware of myself all

the time,

but also illumines the darkness as well as the light in that room, since I see

that the

room that was dark is now lighted. That light, in whose brilliance I could see

the

darkness as well as the light in the room, is the called the ‘light of all

lights’

(jyotir jyotiH), the light of consciousness. Understanding of this forms the

basis of all

knowledge. We arrive some important conclusions from the above analysis.

1) Knowledge is eternal

2) Ignorance appear to cover the knowledge of objects

3) knowledge of objects takes place by dis-covery process or removing the

ignorance

covering the knowledge of the object.

4) To know the object we need a means or instruments like eyes to see, etc.

5) Knowledge can be gained only by a conscious entity- essentially the light of

consciousness has to illumine the thought related to the object for knowledge of

the

object to take place.

6) I am that self-existing self-effulgent being in whose light all things get

revealed or

illuminated.

7). I am self-effulgent, self-revealing and self-conscious being. I know myself

immediately and directly (without any medium required) by myself. I do not

need to

think or meditate or contemplate to know that I am a conscious-existent being.

(Vedanta

says neither sun or moon or the starts or the electricity is needed to illumine

me for me

to see myself. In fact the light of my consciousness illumine every thing that

is known

by me). Some of these aspects become clear as we analyze further the mechanics

of how

the knowledge takes place.

8)Therefore, the self-knowledge is direct and immediate (aparoksha jnaanam)

where the

subject and object merge into one. Knowledge without any specific object (where

subject-object merges into one) is then self-knowledge or self-awareness or

objectless

awareness – which is direct and immediate.

 

Before we proceed further let us review some basics. First, we should know that

‘knowledge’ itself cannot be defined. Whenever we say we have knowledge, we

only refer

to ‘knowledge of things and beings’ or to be more accurately, objective

knowledge; in

simple terms knowledge of ‘this’. Knowledge that we are familiar is always

knowledge

of…. ; all objective knowledge. All objective knowledge is qualified knowledge;

chemistry-knowledge, physics-knowledge, or knowledge of ‘this’ or ‘that’, etc.

We do not

know if there is anything as pure ‘unqualified knowledge’. If I knew, I cannot

even say

I have the knowledge of ‘that’, since the very ‘that’ qualifies the unqualified.

I remain

silent or communicate in the words that take one to that silence.

 

When we say we have knowledge of something, what we mean is we are aware of that

something or we are conscious of it. Hence ‘knowledge of..’ is same thing as

being

‘conscious of..’. Pure knowledge, then, is pure consciousness – and here we

mean as

‘objectless awareness’ since any objective knowledge is a qualified knowledge.

In the

pitch darkness example, we mentioned that I am aware of not only the darkness,

but myself

too. I know myself that I am existent entity and conscious entity. I never

search for

myself anytime since I have to be there even to search. Since subject is never

an object,

objectless awareness is the same thing as self-awareness. Hence pure knowledge

and

self-awareness or self-consciousness means the same. Pure Knowledge cannot be

defined

since it is the same as self-knowledge or consciousness that I am. Besides, all

definitions belong to the realm of objects. Two things cannot be defined, since

they are

not objects. One is Braham since being infinite it cannot be defined to

differentiate it

from the rest of the objects in the world; as there cannot be anything other

than Brahman

for Brahman to be Brahman (infiniteness). The second is the subject, myself.

Since I am

not an object, I cannot be defined. We just mentioned that pure knowledge also

cannot be

defined. In fact, we arrive at the fundamental equation of Vedanta that advaita

emphasizes. Brahman and I am are identically the same, since essential nature

of both is

the same. In addition that Brahman that I am is also the same as unqualified

pure

knowledge. ‘I am’, therefore, is of the nature of pure knowledge and knowledge

of an

object therefore involves illumination of the object by the light of

consciousness that I

am.

 

In the above dark room example, we cannot have the knowledge of the objects in

the room,

unless the external light illumines them. According to Vedanta, that is not

sufficient.

For me to gain the knowledge of an object that is lighted in the room, several

other

things are also needed. First and foremost is that the sense organs should have

adequate

capacity to ‘grasp’ the objects. Or appropriate tools (microscopes or

telescopes, etc)

are required to augment the capacity of the sense organs to ‘grasp’ those

objects for us

to perceive them. This is about the objects out side – outside referring to

outside the

mind. We can know the objects ‘in side’ the mind by process of re-collection,

since we

have ‘collected’ that knowledge already and is stored in the memory. To know an

object we

need an appropriate means to know. Means of knowledge or appropriate tool to

know is

called ‘pramaaNa’, where ‘prama’ means knowledge or more accurately valid

knowledge. The

tool to be used depends on the nature of the object that is to be known. To see

forms and

colors, eyes are needed, to hear sounds ears, etc. Eyes cannot hear and ear

cannot see

–thus each sense organ has its field of knowledge specified. Thus each pramaaNa

or means

of knowledge is very specific in its field of operation.

 

Besides the sense organs, we need the mind to collect the information from the

senses.

Hence we say, ‘out of mind is out of sight’. Besides the mind, there is

consciousness

enlivening the mind, making the mind to be conscious of the world of objects.

Thus

consciousness operates similar to the light that illumines the objects to reveal

the

objects. It is called light of consciousness. We have in the sequence - senses

grasping

the object lighted by the outside light, the mind that collects the sense input

and

integrates into an image of the object in the mind, and consciousness that

lights that

image, for me to see. Object of knowledge is called ‘prameya’ or known, the

knowledge of

the object is called ‘pramiti’, and the means that is operating for the

knowledge to take

place is ‘pramaaNa’. Hence in any knowledge that is involved we have these

three

(tripuTi) operating. When the knowledge takes place, there is obviously a

subject who

owns that knowledge – he is called knower or ‘pramaata’.

 

So far, the analysis seems to be simple for us to understand. However, we need

to know

how exactly this knowledge takes place, and in particular, the role of

consciousness in

acquiring the knowledge of an object. In this respect, we will follow the

understanding

of advaitic masters in terms of how the epistemological issues were treated in

the

doctrine. Following VP, we provide a formal definition of a ‘pramaaNa’.

 

Definition of PamaaNa: – pramaakaraNam pramaaNam – that which is an instrument

of

knowledge (pramaa). There are many instruments that are helpful for the

knowledge to take

place. Hence ‘pramaaNa’ stands for that which is essential cause or means for

the

knowledge to take place, all other causes being only secondary. If we exclude

the

‘recollection’ from the memory (which is part of stored knowledge from the

past), the

pramaaNa is defined as ‘anadhigata, abaadhitam, arthavishyayaka jnaanatvam –

pramaaNam’

- means of knowledge is that which is (a) not known before (since recollection

is

excluded here), (b) non-negatable, and © objectifiable (arthavishya implies

also

‘meaningful’, may not mean ‘useful’, although Ramanuja in his definition of

pramaaNa

includes ‘vyavahaara anuguNam’ or ‘transactability’ as a qualifier for valid

knowledge).

If recollection is included, then pramaaNa is only (a) ‘non-negatable’ and (b)

objectifiable entity. According to the commentator (Swami Madhavananda),

‘non-negatable’ means that it is not negated directly by a contradictory

experience. Ex.

Rope experience is contradictory to the previous snake knowledge of the same

object at

same place where the rope is. Implication is that if the pramaata (knower) does

not have

an experience that is contradictory to the previous ‘knowledge’ gained (say,

that it is a

snake where the rope is), even though that knowledge is erroneous from the point

of an

independent referee, it is still considered as ‘valid’ knowledge for that

knower. It is

important to recognize that unlike other philosophers who believe that

validation is done

by an independent ‘saakshii’, the validation rests with the knower only. If he

does not

encounter any experience that is contradictory to the previous knowledge in his

life

time, then that knowledge stays with him as valid knowledge.

 

This non-negatability for valid knowledge brings us interesting definitions, a

foundation

of advaitic doctrine – absolute knowledge is defined is that which can never be

negated

or contradicted at any time and that advaita defines as real (trikaala

abaadhitam

satyam). That can only be the pure knowledge with out any qualifications. Since

all

objects have qualifications and unqualified knowledge, as discussed above is

knowledge of

myself or knowledge of Brahman. Hence the pure unqualified non-negatable

absolute

knowledge can only be self-knowledge which should be the same as Brahman’s

knowledge,

since Vedanta defines Brahman as pure consciousness – prajnaanam brahma.

 

Non-negatability in the absolute sense corresponds to pure knowledge. In the

definition

of pramaaNa, non-negatability remains valid in the relative sense, even though

it is

negated in the absolute sense. Hence, for example, the knowledge ‘this is a jar’

remains

valid with in the realm of transactional reality (vyavahaara satyam). However,

even in

the absolute sense, what is negated is not the relative knowledge, but absolute

reality

assumed for the relative knowledge. Just as knowledge of the pot remains valid

at

transactional level, even after knowing its substantive is nothing but clay

only, all

knowledge revealed by pramaaNa remains valid at the transactional level, even

when one

realizes that ‘all this is Brahman’ (sarvam khulu idam brahma). Objective

knowledge or

arthaviShayaka pramaaNa, by definition, operates only at the transactional

level. Hence

the definition of pramaaNa is not compromised.

Next we will deal with the cognition of time.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> others to see. I request those who are interested to feel free to comment on

my

> understanding. Of course as usual, I try to be stubborn in defending my

rational

 

praNAms Shri Sadaji,

 

[Thanks for the great explanation. I think this will help many

beginners, as it helped me.]

 

Can you please explain why the words pramaNA, etc.

are used, instead of jnana, jneya etc.? (sorry for the

transliteration.) Are these individual words different

in import, meaning etc.?

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

--- Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote:

>

> Can you please explain why the words pramaNA, etc.

> are used, instead of jnana, jneya etc.? (sorry for the

> transliteration.) Are these individual words different

> in import, meaning etc.?

 

Ramakrishna - PraNAms

 

Jnaana normally has used for the adhyaatmika knowledge. The pramaa is normally

used for

relative knowledge and pramANa as the means of knowledge. Knowledge of Brahman

or self is

actually apramAnam - that is the same as -truth is pathless land - no means is

needed

since all means are within Brahman not for Brahman, since Brahman is all

inclusive.

Vedanta is called pramaaNa only in the sense that it serves like a mirror to

show who we

really are in contrast to what we think we are.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

>

> Definition of PamaaNa: – pramaakaraNam pramaaNam – that which is an

instrument of

> knowledge (pramaa). There are many instruments that are helpful for

the knowledge to take

> place. Hence `pramaaNa' stands for that which is essential cause or

means for the

> knowledge to take place, all other causes being only secondary. If

we exclude the

> `recollection' from the memory (which is part of stored knowledge

from the past), the

> pramaaNa is defined as `anadhigata, abaadhitam, arthavishyayaka

jnaanatvam – pramaaNam'

> - means of knowledge is that which is (a) not known before (since

recollection is

> excluded here), (b) non-negatable, and © objectifiable

(arthavishya implies also

> `meaningful', may not mean `useful',

 

 

Sadaji, can you tell me if it is said " The Veda is pramaana " and if so

how/why? The definition in Dennisji's UK site is:

 

valid means for acquiring knowledge. There are 6 of these in Vedanta:

- perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumAna), scriptural or verbal

testimony (shabda or Agama shruti), analogy (upamAna), presumption

(arthApatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdhi).

 

 

This seems to have nothing to do with the Vedas, and yet sometimes the

Vedas is said to be pramaana for our knowledge of Brahman. Correct?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Sadaji, can you tell me if it is said " The Veda is pramaana " and if so

> how/why? The definition in Dennisji's UK site is:

>

> valid means for acquiring knowledge. There are 6 of these in Vedanta:

> - perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumAna), scriptural or verbal

> testimony (shabda or Agama shruti), analogy (upamAna), presumption

> (arthApatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdhi).

>

>

> This seems to have nothing to do with the Vedas, and yet sometimes the

> Vedas is said to be pramaana for our knowledge of Brahman. Correct?

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

 

Talk about not reading properly !! Only excuse: I was looking for the

word Veda somewhere and was thinking more of the explanation in

" Knowledge... 1 " than Dennisji's definition which just copied.

[Guest guest]

Putranmji - PraNAms

 

I will be discussing all the pramANas one by one - as we follow the book.

Yes Vedas come under shabda pramaaNa - which is called - aapta vaakya -

dependable word.

Just we believe a reporter reporting from Iron - we have a faith that he reports

what is

happening there. The truth in the word is essential for aapta vakyam to be a

pramANa -

then only I can learn from the reporter what is happening in Iron - it is not

direct

perception, it is not inference. It is only faith in the words of the reporter.

 

For things that are beyond the perception and logic, shabda becomes means of

knowledge -

like is there a heaven or hell? Only means of knowledge is Veda - about dharma,

adharma

about life after life, etc. All karma kAnDa rests on the belief that Lord is

going to

bless the results for the actions that we do - like yagna for going to heaven

etc.

 

But for jnaana khaanda - we need to have faith in the teacher who interprets

the Vedas

in a way for the student to understand - Hence sampradAyam or traditional

teaching is

very important since the teaching involves adhyAropa- apavAda.

 

Hence without faith - shabda pramANa does not work.

 

That Vedas are apouruSheyam helps in establishing that faith - otherwise how can

anybody

have faith in the life after death?

 

Without faith nothing will work Hence Shankara says

Shaastrasya guru vaakyasya satyabudhyaavadhaaraNa - saa shraddhaa

Faith in the words of the scriptures as interpreted by the teacher is shraddhaa

- and

shraddhaavan labhate jnaanam - says Krishn

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> >

> > Sadaji, can you tell me if it is said " The Veda is pramaana " and if so

> > how/why? The definition in Dennisji's UK site is:

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >

> > Sadaji, can you tell me if it is said " The Veda is pramaana " and

if so

> > how/why? The definition in Dennisji's UK site is:

> >

> > valid means for acquiring knowledge. There are 6 of these in

Vedanta:

> > - perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumAna), scriptural or

verbal

> > testimony (shabda or Agama shruti), analogy (upamAna),

presumption

> > (arthApatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdhi).

> >

> >

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

>

> Dear Shri Putran,

You say that Dennis-ji's definition includes Agama shruti. That

itself is veda and that is shabda pramAna.Agama is another name for

veda.

I do not know whether I have understood your doubt and answered it.

S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranm,

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

>

> Sadaji, can you tell me if it is said " The Veda is pramaana " and

if so

> how/why? The definition in Dennisji's UK site is:

>

> valid means for acquiring knowledge. There are 6 of these in

Vedanta:

> - perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumAna), scriptural or

verbal

> testimony (shabda or Agama shruti), analogy (upamAna), presumption

> (arthApatti) and non-apprehension (anupalabdhi).

>

>

> This seems to have nothing to do with the Vedas, and yet sometimes

the

> Vedas is said to be pramaana for our knowledge of Brahman. Correct?

>

 

Shabda could be from an Apta or apouruSheya. In both cases it is

pramANa.

 

Shabda or Agama are collective called `shAstra'.

 

What constitutes `shAstra' then ?

 

It is `defined' none other by bhagavAn vEda vyAsa in brahmANDa

purANa as ;

 

R^igAdyA bhArataM chaiva paJNcharAtramathAkhilam.h |

mUlarAmAyaNaM chaiva purANaM chaitadAtmakam.h ||

 

ye cha anuyAyinastveshhAM sarve te cha sadAgamAH |

durAgamastadanye ye tairna j~neyo janArdanaH ||

 

[The Rg and (other Vedas), and the Pancharaatra, in their entirety;

the Muula-RaamaayaNa also (in its entirety), and those PuraaNa that

follows the previous.

These, and others that follow these, are all sadAgamA-s; others are

durAgama-s. And from such durAgams Janaardana (Vishnu) is not

known. ]

 

 

Is Brahman be known/experience from any other way? Bhagavan Vyasa

say no;

 

j~neya etaissadA yuktairbhaktimadbhiH sunishhThitaiH |

na cha kevalatarkeNa nAxajena na kenachit.h |

kevalAgamavij~neyo bhaktaireva na chAnyathA ||

 

[From these sadAgmas only He is known, to those steadily engaged (in

attempting to know Him), to those with steady devotion (towards

Him); not from mere logic alone, not ever from mere observation;

only from scripture is He known, with devotion, and not otherwise. ]

 

Some shrutis also says the same thing about source of information

about Brahman. Some example are;

 

nAvedavinmanute daM bR^ihantaM sarvAnubhUmAtmAnaM sAmparAye -

Taittiriiya-shruti

(One not knowing the Vedas [and other texts] does not know the

Great, all-Controlling Paramaatman, the Giver of mukti " )

 

naishhA tarkeNa matirApaneyA proktAnyenaiva suj~nAnAya preshhTha -

KaTha-shruti

(Knowledge about this (the Brahman) cannot be obtained by (mere)

logic alone; such has to be given by a learned other, dear one)

 

nendriyANi nAnumAnaM vedA hyevainaM vedayanti tasmAdAhuH vedAH –

says Pippalaada-shruti

(Not by the sense-organs, nor by logic, is this known, which is

known by them, therefore they called `Vedas')

 

 

That's the reason, unlike many people now a days, we would not

venture into wrongly define those concepts such as `time', `space'

etc on mere logic alone, for these are by definition these are

metaphysical truths and they are ananta. We let only shAstra can

shed light on these.

 

 

Is this shAstra can give knowledge about Brahman only?

 

SriKrishna says in BG 16.24 says, shAstra or sabda pramANa is also

the source of injunctions and prohibitions ;

 

tasmAt shAstram pramANam tE kAryAkarya vyavastitou

(shAstras are pramANa for the system of kArya (do's) and akArya

(donot's) )

 

 

Now, knowing what constitutes `shAstra-s', we need to know how

validity is established epistemologically for such shAstra. This is

epistemic question and needs deeper understanding. I do not think

this forum's objective permits to explore that territory. It has

been dealt else where. If anybody is interested, contact me in

private and I'll hook you to such sources.

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal