Do we see things as they are?

moksa · November 7, 2003

I am just going to leave this as an open question for discussion.

How is the question of 'Do we see things as they are?' answered in the different traditions of Indian thought?

moksa

November 7, 2003

We see things through the filter of our own desires.

anadi · November 7, 2003

VrajanAtha: In the first Sloka of DaSa-mUla, the Vedas are accepted

as the sole evidence (pramANa); whereas the other pramANas, such

as pratyakSa (direct perception), are accepted as evidence only

when they follow the Vedas. However, philosophies such as nyAya

and sANkhya have accepted further types of evidence. Well-versed

readers of the PurANas have accepted eight types of pramANa:

pratyakSa (direct perception),

anumAna (inference based on generalized experience),

upamAna (analogy),

Sabda (revealed knowledge),

aitihya (traditional instruction),

arthApatti (inference from circumstances),

sambhava (speculation), and

anupalabdhi (understanding

something by its non-perception). Why are there so many opinions

regarding pramANa? And if direct perception and inference

based on experience are not counted among the perfect pramANas,

how is it possible to get real understanding? Kindly enlighten me.

BAbAjI: PratyakSa and other types of evidence depend on the senses,

but since the senses of the conditioned jIva are always subject to

bhrama (illusion), pramAda (error), vipralipsA (cheating), and

karaANpATava (imperfection of the senses), how can the knowledge

acquired through the senses be factual and faultless? The fully independent possessor of all potencies, Sri Bhagavän Himself, personally manifested as perfect Vedic knowledge within the pure

hearts of great mahaRSis and saintly AcAryas who were situated in

full samAdhi.

Therefore, the Vedas, which are the embodiment of svataH-siddha-jnana (self-manifest, pure knowledge) are always faultless and fully dependable as evidence.

Source Jaiva Dharma, Chapter PramAna and the commencement of prameya