The Birth of Buddhism      Unit MBI 101

                                              Lesson 11

 We are beginning to enter a critical are of study, so relax and avoid ponderous heavy concentration. Read carefully and generate a sense of enjoyment in reading, without adopting a traditional attitude. Look at the questions posed in the text by the Brahmins, understand them and try to see how they felt.

As we have said before, if you approach this and other lessons with an academic approach, your study time will be much longer and the return less, therefore relax and open yourself to the true learning experience. If you wish to study the lesson more, then do so for fun not for achievement.

LESSON ELEVEN                        Pramanas

We have spoken of resistance to the rites and ceremonies of some Brahmins, and you have seen the protests of Bharadvaja.

As protests are derived from the seeds of doubt, what types of doubts did they have? Were they just doubts about the rites and ceremonies or was there more to the changes taking place than that?

We learn form the followers of Mahavira, that there were eleven great Brahmins who had serious doubts about brahmanic ideas, and who became heads of Mahavira’s groups. If we look at their doubts while they were Brahmins, we can get an even better idea of the times.  But lest we think that India was a writhing mass of discontent, you must realize that the ordinary Indians were going about their daily tasks with all the normal ideas than man has had for generations about his work and life. They were connected intimately to their religion, each in his own way, far more consciously than we are today, but few were involved or even cared about the great intellectual and spiritual changes taking place.

Indrabhuti

I n 1931 B.C., in the village of Gobar of India, a Brahmin couple called Vasubhuti and Prithvi Gautam had their first son, Indrabhuti, and later two more, named Agnibhuti and Väyubhuti.  All three grew and became masters well versed in the Hindu literature (Vedas) and other rituals. Each had many disciples. (Tradition always uses the number 500 to signify many.) 

One day, in the city of Apäpä, a Brahmin named Somil was conducting a Yajna (sacrificial ceremony).  There were over forty four hundred Brahmins present for the occasion, and there were eleven popular scholars among them. Three of them were the aforementioned brothers. The whole town was attending the important ceremony, for there were to be great sacrifices of sheep and goats.

It is said that suddenly Somil noticed many celestial beings from heaven descending towards his sacrificial site. He told the people, “Look at the sky.  Even the angels are coming to bless us.”  The whole town eagerly looked at the sky.

But to their great dismay, they saw that the celestial beings did not stop; they passed by their town.  Somil’s ego melted away when he learned that the celestial beings were paying homage to Mahavira, who had come to Mahäsen Forest to preach a sermon.

Indrabhuti was outraged by this incident and his ego was bruised.  He started thinking to himself, “Who is this Mahävir who does not even use affluent Sanskrit, but speaks the common public language of Ardha Mägadhi and opposes animal sacrifices?” Angrily, he left the Yajna site to challenge Lord Mahävir.

Mahävir welcomed Indrabhuti by calling him by his name, even though they had never met.  Indrabhuti was surprised, but then he said to himself, “Who does not know me? I am not surprised he knew my name.  I wonder if he knows what I am thinking. Can he tell that I doubt the existence of the soul?”

The next moment Mahävir said, “Indrabhuti, ätmä (soul - consciousness) is there and you should not question it.” Indrabhuti was shocked and began to think very highly of Mahävir. After a philosophical discussion between the two, Indrabhuti changed his beliefs and became Mahävir’s first and chief disciple. According to Jain records. this took place in 1881 BC, when Indrabhuti was fifty years old.

Agnibhuti and Väyubhuti

As Indrabhuti did not come back, his brothers, Agnibhuti and Väyubhuti, as well as other Pundits such as Vyakta, went to Mahavira one after another with their doubts. Agnibhuti Gautam had a doubt regarding the existence of an entity called Karma.  His doubt was: “Is everything that happens only the soul's doing.”

Vayubhuti Gautam had another doubt: "Is this body itself the soul or is the soul different from the body?" Mahavira welcomed them and gave them convincing replies, pointing out their doubts pertaining to the soul. All of them were satisfied with Mahavira’s elucidation and became his pupils, along with their own followers.

The other seven Brahmin scholars, hearing the news of these conversions, also went to challenge Mahavira.

Sudharma

Sudharmäswämi was the son of a learned Brahmin named Dhammil, who lived in a village called Kollag, situated in the present state of Bihar. The place is now known as Kollua and according to the archaeologists, it is the place where great Pundits like Vyakta and Sudharma had their schools in ancient times.

Dhammil and his wife Bhaddilä had been childless. Craving for a child, Bhaddilä worshipped the goddess Saraswati and it is said that the goddess was so pleased by her devotion that she blessed her with a highly accomplished son. Bhaddilä became pregnant, and in due course, she gave birth to a son, who was named Sudharma. That happened in 1931 BC, which means Sudharmäswämi was 8 years older than Lord Mahävir.

The boy grew up under the loving care of his parents and, at the proper age, he was sent to a well known Äshram school, where he studied Vedas, Upanishads and all other Brahmanical literature. By the time he finished his schooling, he was known as a learned Pundit and his fame had spread far and wide. He then started his own school, which became a great center of learning. Pupils used to come there from all over the country. There were more than 500 students studying under him.

He guessed that Mahävir might be an impostor who could have somehow impressed the heavenly beings, so he felt that it was necessary to counter his tactics immediately. But when he saw Mahavira, his pride began to melt, especially when Mahavira told him correctly that a doubt still lurked in his mind.

Sudharma's doubt was this: "Is the soul in the next birth the same kind as in this birth or different?" His concept was that every living being would reincarnate in its own species. In other words, human beings could be reborn only as humans. His belief was based on the analogy of plant life. An apple tree, for instance, would produce the seeds from which only apple trees could come out

Mahavira then quoted the relevant sutra from the Veda itself and explained that there was no reason to hold such a doubt. With that clarification, Sudharma’s doubt was eradicated. Thereupon, he decided to accept Mahavira as his Guru. So falling at the feet of the Lord, he requested to be accepted as a pupil. Mahavira was pleased to accede to the request and initiated him.

The other seven great Brahmins then came, hearing of the great conversions. You have seen the nature of the problems and will note the sort of questions which some Brahmins clearly had. We will look more closely now at the answers Mahavira gave, but don’t go deeply into the answers themselves. Look and see how the answers were made and what form they took. If they were persuasive, why?

Mauryaputra

Mauryaputra’s doubt was this: "Is there a place called Heaven?"

Mahavira answered the following:

“Because you have found two kinds of contradictory Vedic statements, you have entertained the doubt whether deities (celestial beings) exist or not.

The first Vedic statement says, “Who has seen the deities who are like magical and mesmeric beings?” In other words, from the first Vedic statement, one seems to feel that there are no deities and no heaven.

But the second Vedic statement says, "those who have performed yajnas (sacrifices) attain heaven; because yajnas work as weapons and they tear off the cover of sins." From this statement, you get the idea that heavenly beings do exist.

In there two statements, the absence of heavenly beings is assumed because the inhabitants of hell, being dependent, cannot come to this world; but heavenly beings are deemed to be free and independent to come to this world, so if they really exist, why do they not come here? Since they do not come, this shows their absence.

However, in other parts of the Vedas, we find the following proofs of the existence of heavenly beings:

1. Here in the samavasaran (the preaching-castle), the celestial beings are directly visualized.

2. The jyotish-vimans (planes) are a locality, and so like a mansion, they must be the abode, the residence of some beings. These residents are a class of heavenly beings. These abodes are called vimans (Planes) because the vimans are studded with gems and they regularly travel through the sky in a fixed manner. Winds, clouds, a ball of fire etc. are not made of gems. So they are not the residence of any beings.

Mauryaputra asked: Why should we not call it an illusory structure?

Mahavira answered: If you believe them to be illusory, even then the heavenly beings are proved to exist. Who can construct such illusory things? This kind of construction is beyond the capacity of human beings.

3. Just as jivas experience the fruits of an intense kind of sins committed by them on going to hell; similarly 'Who are to experience the fruit of the loftiest kind of punya (good deeds) ? Only deities. Man, whose body is made up of foul smelling substances and who is subject to the afflictions of old age and disease, cannot be called the enjoyer of the supreme kind of felicity.

4. Even from the statements made by those who remember their previous births, the existence of heavenly beings is proved, just as we can get knowledge of the countries and the people and places from the travellers who visited those countries.

5. Our aspirations are fulfilled by means of the adoration of Vidya-Mantra. That happens only by the grace of heavenly beings, just as a king's servants' aspirations are fulfilled by the grace of that king.

6. Sometimes some human beings speak in a strange manner or make strange actions. They do not speak or act thus when they are in a normal condition. So it must be accepted that this kind of impossible-like distortion takes place because of the entrance of a deity (heavenly being) into that human body. Just as a mechanical vehicle going at a normal speed in a particular direction takes a strange turn, and when it happens so, there is the inference that 'not the machine itself, but the person sitting in it has brought about the change', in the same manner, a heavenly being that captures a human body makes the human being act in an abnormal manner.

7. Sometimes, miracles occur in temples. Human beings get special dreams, they get special revelations. All these things prove the existence of heavenly beings, who impel them.

8. The word 'deity' is a pure word with a clear etymological derivation. Therefore, it is necessarily meaningful. The deity denoted by this 'Dev' word must exist.

Mauryaputra asked: The word 'deity' can be applied to a very affluent person possessing a lot of paraphernalia. He can be called a deity; is that not so? We say to someone "Friend see! He is like a deity".

Mahavira answered: First, a word denotes prominently an existent object. Then this word is subordinately used elsewhere for attributive denotation, and it is a duplicate of the basic thing. If the denoted subject of the basic word itself is not existent at all, how can there be an attributive simile? Since a lion exists, we say a brave and courageous man is a 'lion-man' 'narsimha', a man like a lion.

`Dev, `Amar, `Girvan, `Divaukas', etc. are independent alternative names -other words. They are not for mortals but for deities. If there were no deities, austerities as penance and benevolence etc. become fruitless! If there are no deities, the Vedic statements that mention `soma', `yama', `suraguru' etc., and the Vedic statements inviting the heavenly beings like Indra, will have no meaning at all.

The Reasons why Celestial beings do not come here:

1. The transition of divine love;

2. Divine sensual cravings and attachments;

3. Infinite divine duties (like a polite person absorbed in some extraordinary duties and endeavours);

4. Independent duties like those of men (like a yati who has renounced worldly life );

5. The unbearable smell of the human world.

The Reasons for the coming of Deities:

1. The celebration of the JIN KALYANAK SAMAROH (celebration of crucial events of the Tirthankar);

2. Removal of doubts;

3. Deep attachment for someone;

4. The fulfilment of a promise to carry out, awakening etc.;

5. Enmity;

6. Curiosity;

7. The attraction of the spiritual strength of a Mahatma;

8. The spreading of a Mahatma's glory;

9. Bestowing grace on friends or children;

10.Testing sadhus etc.

For these reasons, deities come to this world. The introduction of deities as being 'illusory' is to indicate that if even divine prosperity is transitory, what to say of human prosperity? Why should we indulge in their deep attachment?

This explanation cleared the doubt of Mauryaputra and he accepted the Charitra-diksa at the feet of Shri Mahavir Bhagavan with his three hundred and fifty pupils.

AKAMPIT

Akampit’s question was: “Does hell really exist?”

Mahavira said to him,

“You have found in the Vedas these two contradictory statements”:

(a)   In the next life there is no hell nor are there inhabitants in hell.

(b) Those who eat food of the sudras (men of the fourth caste among Hindus) go to hell.

Since you have found these contradictory statements in the Vedas, you have entertained the doubt whether there are inhabitants of hell in the next life, or not.

The belief that there are no inhabitants of hell has arisen because the abodes of such deities as Chandra (Moon etc.) are visible even now; while the inhabitants of hell are not. How can we even infer that there are inhabitants of hell who are totally different from heavenly beings, human beings, animals and birds?

Here are the proofs of the existence of the inhabitants of hell.

1. Just because only you cannot see them, you say that there are no inhabitants of hell. If that is the case, there are objects like lions and tigers not seen by you. Does this mean that they do not exist? It is not true that " only what is perceived by the external senses is directly perceptible", because by direct perception (atma- pratyaksa), narakas are visible to the omniscient directly.

Thus that which is known by the senses is not called in fact 'directly visible (tangible) and existent substance’, because even after the activities of the senses end, the substance continues to exist.

Thus the senses can perceive only a very small aspect of its nature out of the multitudinous and infinite natures of a substance.

If this is so, you cannot deny the presence of the multitudinous nature just because you only have the indicator (hetu), -the small aspect of its nature.

For instance, the inference can be that this is a pot, because in the past a trustworthy man indicated such a thing is called a pot. Because it’s called a name, and because we have very little experience with challenging the inferences which are made with respect to that name, it does not come to our attention that we have not directly experienced that relationship.

The knowledge arising through other external factors, except the soul, is in fact not direct perception (pratyaksa) but is paroksa (indirect knowledge). The omniscient 'kevaljnani', can see directly the inhabitants of the hell.

2. Where are the most serious sins punished? Where are the fruits of extremely horrible sins to be experienced? Not in the incarnation of animals, insects, etc. because no extreme and severe. punishment is experienced there. They get pleasant air, water, light, shelter in the shadows of trees, food and other pleasures.

Where there is not the least of such pleasures, but where there are the experiences of only tortures like being cut, torn, pierced, burnt, baked and beaten on rocks, etc., who are such souls? The answer is that such are only the inhabitants of hell who experience these agonies.

3. In normal life a person who commits one murder is hanged but only once, but a person who commits thousands of murders where is the punishment in proportion to the offence committed by him? We must say that only hell is such a place where sinners do not die even after being cut to pieces. Again and again the limbs are cut to pieces out of their bodies, they unite and assume their original form, and they have to experience again the torture of being cut to pieces, being pierced again and again.

4. The reasons for uttering a lie are fear, attachments, hatred, illusion and ignorance. They are not present at all in the (sarvajna) an omniscient. He need not utter lies. So, how can the statement about hell existing in reality, given by such an omniscient, be false?

Then "there is no hell in the next birth". What is the meaning of this Vedic statement? It only means that an inhabitant of hell, after death, does not again become an inhabitant of hell in his next birth.

This explanation given by the Bhagavan cleared the doubt of Akampit and he became a disciple of the Bhagavan.

ACHALA BHRATA

Achalbhrata had a doubt regarding punya or good actions. His doubt was this: "Why should we believe in both good and bad fortune?"

Mahavira said to Achalbhrata

“Whatever exists is purusa (soul). On account of this statement you have entertained a doubt regarding the existence of punya (good fortune) and papa (misfortune).

There are five alternative opinions regarding punya and papa

1. Only punya (good fortune) exists; not misfortune (papa),

2. Only papa exists, not punya

3. Punya and papa remain mixed, giving mixed joys and sorrows.

4. They remain independent and give separate fruits like joys and sorrows.

5. There is nothing like punya or papa. Neither punya nor papa exists, and joys and sorrows arise naturally.

Mahavir, then using extensive use of simile explains, the characteristics of good and bad fortune. He takes each case in question and deals with it in a logical manner. Then he makes the following conclusion:

In this world we see three varieties of benefit, good, evil and neutral. Just as with sweet, bitter and tasteless, the absence of sweetness is tastelessness also, not sheer bitterness. Bitterness is an independent taste. The presence of good or evil is not the absence of each other. It is not only that the absence of good is evil and the absence of evil is good, they are neutral as well.

If disease abates, health appears, but not the difference in state like strength. To get this strength, separate medicine must be taken. In the absence of 'durjanata (ignobility) there might be sajjanata, gentleness (nobility) but not a lofty kind of nobility.

In the same way one who commits horrible ignoble actions and good actions, auspicious sentiments and inauspicious sentiments etc., they are not the absent forms of each other, but independent entities. Hence their effects, punya and papa, also are proved to be independent.

This explanation given by the Bhagavan Mahavir brought enlightenment of truth to Achalbhrata. He too accepted the discipleship of Mahavira.

METARYA

Metarya had extreme doubts about the existence of life after death.

Mahavira told him:

“On account of mutually contradictory vedic statements  you have entertained the doubt of whether there is anything like the next life, the next birth or not.

You believe that there is no next life, no rebirth on account of the following reasons:

1. Like the whiteness of a thing, consciousness belongs to the bhoota-pinda (the elemental body). Just as when a cloth is destroyed, its whiteness is destroyed, similarly when the body is destroyed consciousness itself is destroyed. When that is so, where remains anything for going to the next birth?

2. Even though the consciousness may be different from the body, like the flames emerging from the wood, it can be transient, not permanent. There is therefore no next life.

3. Even if the soul possessing consciousness is a permanent thing, and if it is all-pervasive, then it cannot go anywhere. It is therefore not going to the next life.

4. In the form of the other worlds, heaven and hell are not visible at all, then what is 'parloka', the other world?

But now consider the proofs supporting the existence of the other world.

1. From the inferences already mentioned, consciousness is the nature of the different independent soul but not of 'bhutas'-- the basic elements. From the reasons like the remembrance of the previous life, it is proved that the soul has come from the other world. It is permanent as a dravya (a substance, a reality); but as parvava or a modification, it is a transient, conscious soul.

2. There cannot be only one all-pervasive and motionless soul, because--

(a) Due to the differences among souls of attachment and hatred, sensual pleasures and emotions, thoughts and feelings, auspicious and inauspicious contemplations, existence of hell-abiders and heavenly beings, there cannot exist in the universe only one soul but there must be different souls on account of these different effects.

(b)Since those attributes are perceptible only in the body, the soul pervades only the body;

(c)The soul is proved as possessing movement because it is bhokta (one who experiences karma-fruits) and, roaming in various lives, is capable of movements in the four gatis).

3. The soul is both transient and constant

Metarya asked: Knowledge being not different from the soul, if the soul is an embodiment of knowledge, then knowledge, being of creative nature, is transient and so the soul also must be transient . Then whose is the next birth?

Mahavira answered: If knowledge is different from the soul, the soul can remain permanent.

Metarya asked: But in the condition like that of a pure sky or like an inanimate wood, there remains the issue of the next birth of the pure soul different from knowledge. How can there be next birth for inanimate wood? In the permanent one, if there is the capacity of doing karmas and experiencing their fruits, then these may go on always, but it is not so.  Therefore, the soul is not permanent but transient, and when it is transient, how can there be the next birth?

Mahavira answered: In vijnan, let there be creativity, and hence let the vijnan be transient, but why should it not be permanent also?

Even in the pot there is not merely transience, there is also permanence; because what is a pot? It is not merely a shape but it is an aggregate of color, taste, smell, touch, oneness in number, shape of roundness, capacity to contain water. In the previous clay-bulk also these qualities like colour etc. existed. Only shape and capacity did not exist. It means that the pot in the form of colour etc. is not newly created but is constant; as well as in the form of its new shape and capacity, it is created. Here the clay-bulk is destroyed in its shape and capacity. The same pot is destroyed also in its previous attributes, like blackness etc. In this manner, the pot is proved to be steady (constant) and also created.

In other words, the soul is both transient and constant. In the same manner, all substances and souls also are proved as steady and transient. In this position, the soul sees a cloth after seeing the pot. The soul in the form of pot knowledge is lost and the soul in the form of cloth- knowledge is created and remains steady in the form of jivatva.

In this manner, when a man dies and is born as a heavenly being, he perishes as a human being but is newly created as a heavenly being. Of course in the form of jivatva, he is intact. Thus the next birth is logically established and it is reasonable, relevant, coherent, consistent and reconcilable.

All the 'sat-vastu' (real substances) have the three attributes viz. utpad (creation), vyaya (destruction), and dhravya (steadiness); because what is unreal cannot be created; otherwise the unreal, like 'horse-horns', could go on being created! The real substance can never be destroyed. Otherwise, gradually, all substances could be completely destroyed. Therefore, a substance in a certain form remains intact in a certain form and goes on being created in a certain form.

The prince's beloved gold pot had been broken and transformed into small anklets for the princess. In this, the substance gold is the same, but the forms are three. When the same substance as a pot is lost, the prince's feeling is changed into sadness; and when the same substance as a small anklet is created, the princess' feeling is changed into joy, and since the same substance remains intact as gold, the king remains neutral in his feelings. The causes of these three different feelings must be different, and they are pot, anklet and gold, which must be believed as different and intermingled in the same substance.

4. If there is no other world, the vedic statements that prescribe agnihotra etc. for the attainment of heaven, will be meaningless.

This explanation given by Shri Mahavir Bhagavan removed Metarya’s doubts and he too became a disciple.

Vyakta

In addition, a scholar by the name of Vyakta had a doubt regarding the five elements. His doubt was "There are the five material elements, namely Prithvi (earth), Ap (water), Tejas (fire), Vayu (air) and Akash (Vacuum-space). Are these real or unreal and illusory like a dream?"

Mandit

Then there was Mandit, who had a doubt regarding bondage. His doubt was: "Is the soul for ever pure, enlightened and free from that bondage by means of proper endeavors?"

Prabhas

Finally, there was Prabhas, who had a doubt regarding salvation, Moksa.  His doubt was: "Is there a definite state called Moksa? Does the soul attain a state of eternal, boundless and pure happiness? Is the jiva completely destroyed or annihilated after its samsar is completed?"

These eleven Brahmins and their 4400 students thereafter were converts to  Mahavira’s Jainism.

These reports give us a clear idea of Mahavira’s views, but that is not precisely why we are looking at them. I would like you to see the way in which Mahavira works to demolish ideas with which he is in opposition. First he sets up clearly the doubt, then the alternatives and then addresses each one before making a conclusion.

Whether he is sufficiently convincing for you is quite another matter.

These Brahmins were clearly human and not at all blind faithful followers of tradition. They had reasonable doubts, as we all have. They, like each of us, were faced with a serious problem, “How can one know the truth?”

Indeed, we see so many variations in beliefs ad ideas and we find that we too are beset by our own opinions, justifications and biases, which appear to have little credence really. Do we really know what is true? We have seen that the sceptics would discuss nothing, partially on the belief that little was divorced from personal identity problems.

What must we then do. Believe nothing at all?

There have developed various ideas with respect to what may be considered as true. In science we accept nothing as truth and only talk about the probabilities of being correct. But in Transcendental matters, the philosophers wished to talk with more certainty. In a general way, we can accept one viable criteria for our general purposes: we should at least accept as true what wise men agree is probably the truth. The problem is: Who is to decide who are the wise men?

This then is the base of this lesson.

Let us then look at various ideas as to what can really be accepted as truth and, with an open mind, examine each. Then you can return and see which methods Mahavira used.

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 calls for taking evidence in various modalities.

It is extremely important that we 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 start to look at the different facets life, it is extremely important that we first know which means of knowledge are at our disposal.

The teachers of Advaita Vedanta philosophy went into this aspect of the process of knowledge in great detail, and have enumerated ‘six’ pramanas.

Which pramana has to be resorted to and when, is decided by the situation and the nature of object concerned. These six means of knowledge to which were added two more by mythologists are:

Pratyaksha (Proof by Perception),

Anumana (Proof by Inference),

Sabda (Proof by Verbal Testimony),

Upamana (Proof by Comparison),

Arthapatti (Proof by Postulation),

Anupalabdhi (Proof by Non-apprehension),

Aitihya (Proof through History),

Sambhava (Proof using Educated guess)

These are the eight means of knowledge available to us, and we consciously or unconsciously use them in our day to day life to ‘know’ various things which come our way. It is extremely important for us to understand each of these pramanas properly, so that we don’t start using the wrong means to know a particular kind of object.

 This is specially so when we are inquisitive to know about transcendental matters.

.

Pratyaksha Pramanam

Pratyaksha means sensory perception, and it includes all the data perceived from our sensory units. Certainly it is the normal way we make judgments, but human perception is fraught with error even among the most skilled observers and indeed the senses themselves are often in conflict.

It 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 and they are perceived in consciousness as apparently real then the Pratyaksha knowledge takes place. The ‘internal’ perception means the direct and immediate cognition of pain, pleasure, love, hate, anger, knowledge or ignorance of various mental projections.

This awareness is thereafter presented to the knower in the mind as a thought of the object, and he then appears to ‘know’ 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. We have perceptions of depth distance, texture, color and many more. The immediacy of direct cognition is the intrinsic characteristic of perceptual knowledge, it appears that things are present here and now, which in itself is a perception.

Perception, the knowledge, is extremely clear but its truth is more limited than one might suppose. What we can actually directly see is a small percentage of the wider sensory truths. We see the internal perceptions, the thoughts running around like “noise” in our minds, but we don’t directly see their cause. Even when we believe that we have perceived a cause that may not be certain.

Look at these five thoughts of apparently intelligent men, based upon the evidence of their senses and their interpretation.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

    --Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication.

The device is inherently of no value to us."

        -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"

        --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his

         urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

       --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."

    --Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

Is what you see, touch, hear, taste, and smell really there? In this course you will eventually realize that they are not.

                     So much for human perception and opinion.

Anumanam

Augmenting the raw data of the senses, we have Anumäna, deductive and inductive logic, which depends on the validity of its premises and reasons.

We cannot prove anything with final certainty, but still we believe what we have logically deduced. How often have we heard people drawing conclusions and say finally, “That’s logical isn’t it”, and then sit back waiting for your clear affirmation.

Literally translated, the word anumana means ‘knowing after’. It means the method by which knowledge is derived from other 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 logical deduction.

Perception forms the basis of anumana, but at the core of all inferential knowledge lies the knowledge of vyapti or the ‘invariable concomitance’, the invariable relationship between the two objects. There is an old adage which says, “Wherever there is smoke there is fire,” but the  opposite 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 :

Perceptual evidence - Invariable concomitance - Wherever there is smoke there is fire. There is a quote of Roosevelt the American president who said, “When I see an animal with four feet like a dog, a head like a dog, a tail like a dog and barks like a dog, then I believe it to be a dog. 

But we know, do we not, that he might be wrong.

I remember a story of a student years ago who was studying with a famous master. He was serious and sincere, nowadays a rare combination, so he studied and practiced night and day for three years with the Mantra Om Mani Padme Hung. He learned the subtle significance, the subtle relation between Om as the body and Hung as the mind. He learned that the two had been separated by ignorance so that we imagined that there were two things not one. He learned that the true discrimination of the two was joined into a non-dual whole by the subtle syllable Ah, and that the subtle energy had been destroyed by Mara.

He learned that Compassion was the best way to reunite mind and body and that the best way to do that was to put oneself in touch with true compassion, not the worldly mind controlled type. He learned that an expedient way was to was to call up a visualization of Avolokiteshvara, the representation of true compassion that lies within each one of us, and repeat the phrase “Mani Padme” the mantra phrase of Avalokiteshvara between the words Om and Hung.

He thus practiced over and over until he had it perfect in Sanskrit and Tibetan. Finally his Master, seeing perfection, told him he should now go into the world and be a teacher.

Thus filled with joy that he could now teach, he went out into the villages to find someone to teach the Mantra of Avolokiteshvara to. He looked for weeks and found no one who would listen.

Finally someone told him that there was an old disgusting hermit living alone by the river who ferried people across on a small raft.

Surely, thought our new teacher, he will need help.

He ran as fast as he could to the river and there saw the hermit just as described. He went forward ready to teach, and then stopped, shaken, for the hermit was sitting by the banks, repeating Om Mane Padme Hung.

He was shocked and disappointed, for his Perception and Logic had told him that this hermit would be a perfect candidate for teaching. Alas, he started to move away when he saw that the hermit was making terrible mistakes. His rhythm was wrong, his spacing was wrong, the words were badly expressed and there was no sign of devotion.

Once more his initial logic and perception had let him down.

Now he approached the hermit and said, “My dear Sir, I am sure that your intentions are fine, but you will never get anywhere saying Om Mani Padme Hung like that.”

“How then monk do I say it?” asked the hermit.

The monk showed him and asked the hermit to repeat it.

For a week he sat with the hermit and the hermit was unable to pronounce anything correctly or in the right way.

Finally he deduced with his perception and logic that the man could never learn.

Sadly he began to walk away. Then he thought, I am wrong to treat him in this way. Perhaps he is deaf. So he returned to try once more finally.

“Look,” he said, going behind the old man. “Say Om Mani Padme Hung.” The old man did as before, totally incorrectly.

The potential teacher finally gave up. He will live in this inferno forever, he thought.

As he walked away he heard the hermit repeating once more over and over incorrectly Om Mane Padme Hung. He gave one last glance over his shoulder and stopped in disbelief.

The old man, radiating all the compassion of Avolokiteshvara’s mind and body, clearly undivided and with the essence of compassion surrounding him, while repeating in his own way in his own time Om Mani Padme Hung, was walking across the lake upon the surface of the water.

Not only is this a precious tale of the foolishness of dogma, rites and ceremonies without the essence, it is a clear lesson of the faulty combination of perception and logic.

Shruti (Shabda) Pramanam

Shabda pramana is verbal testimony. It is also called ‘apta-vakyas’ (statement of a trustworthy 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 and knowledge through words. Right from school days to this moment we use words as a valid and 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 live by this verbal testimony.

A verbal statement conveying valid knowledge must have an authentic source which is trusted to be free from defects. Only a competent person possessed of knowledge can impart accurate knowledge.

If all that we know from verbal testimony were to await confirmation, then the bulk of human knowledge would have to be regarded as of no value. Few Westerners recognize verbal testimony as a valid and independent means of knowledge, but a majority of Indian philosophers do. Yet in the West, science is accepted without seeing any scientific evidence, thus we believe that this food or that food is good or bad for health.

But any verbal testimony must contain expectancy (akanksa), consistency (yogyata), contiguity (asatti), and knowledge of the purport (tatparya-jnanam). Understanding of all this helps us to understand why verbal testimony is an independent means of knowledge very different from inference.

There used to be no source of establishing the identity of the father except by the authority of the mother. But now we have DNA proofs and the old idea of Shabda has fallen, at least in that area.

Vedic knowledge is Shabda (çabda-pramäëa). This is particularly applicable to transcendental subject matter, which cannot be understood by the empirical and theorizing methods.

If you can substantiate your statements by quotations from the Vedas, then they are accepted. You are not required to substantiate them in other ways.

In modern courts, if you can give statements from the law book, your statement is accepted. In the same way, all statements you give, if supported by this means, are accepted by transcendental Vedic scholars.

It is said, even today by Brahmins, that “..no one can establish his existence experimentally beyond the proof of Vedic wisdom, and that we have to accept this truth, because there is no other source, or be constantly cynical.”

But it is very strange that people are cynical only about what they wish to be cynical.  I know one person who believes only in science but accepted a personality test report. (It was complimentary.) The process was then termed as “soft science”  Softness, it appears, depends upon many factors.

Thus the existence of soul and God can be accepted on the basis of superior authority.

It is still claimed there is no source of understanding the soul except by studying the Vedas. In other words, the soul is inconceivable by human experimental knowledge, thus the only way to know it absolutely is through the divine scriptures.

But who is the viable source?

In spiritual matters, the scientist is no good. In scientific matters it all depends upon reputation, publications and many factors besides a knowledge of what is claimed to be true.

A scientific claim by one who is a devotee of some God or other has no weight, for he has no qualification or experience. Yet scientists who have not attempted to know by any means except their scientific method assume to decide what is or what is not in the transcendental world.

Why? Because the transcendental is dismissed as unreal. Yet seeing Aura is now considered acceptable because science has approved it.  We must ask the scientist if he can prove the existence of his mind (not brain). He cannot, yet he is proud to use it.

So authority is accepted as a valid method.

Now, what about the newspaper? From the newspaper you understand that in China such and such things have taken place. And in India such and such things have taken place. Or from a radio message you understand that such and such things have taken place. But you are not experiencing directly whether such and such things have actually taken place.

But you accept the authority of the newspaper and you believe that in China such and such things have taken place and in India such and such things have taken place, which is far beyond the range of your direct perception. And there are many similar instances.

We have to believe in authority to acquire knowledge. The more perfect the authority, the more perfect your knowledge. Direct perception in all cases it is not possible.

Upamana

Upamana is 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 owns a horse goes to a forest and sees wild ponies. The person sees the similarity ‘This pony is like my horse’, and on this basis also concludes the opposite to be equally true, that ‘My horse is like this pony.’ Thus by upamana he gains the knowledge of similarity and can make deductions from that premise.

Brahman is said to be resplendent as the sun. By perceiving the luminosity of the sun, the seeker can appreciate the terms like the self-luminosity of Brahman.

But of course there is always the possibility of error. A person told that a certain bird is a crow on seeing a raven may call it a crow and be mistaken. That is because in making his comparisons he did not see differences. An error can occur in a different direction. A cat without a tail (the Manx cat) may be considered not to be a cat because the comparison shows a difference.

There are perils, perils everywhere.

Arthapatti

Arthapatti means postulation, supposition or presumption of a fact and is a distinctly valid form of mediate knowledge. It is 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 person who is constantly gaining weight, yet says that he has no medical infliction and claims that he never eats during the day. Then we can postulate that he eats at night for the simple reason that without this assumption his increment in weight 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, ‘The knower of Self transcends grief’. Here we see that mere knowledge destroys grief. It can then be assumed, without any doubt, that all grief must be false when it can be destroyed by mere knowledge alone. This is assumption.

Anupalabdhi

The Advaitins and the Mimasaka school of Kumarila Bhatt believe Anupalabdhi to be a separate independent pramana. It literally means non-apprehension.

The 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 also use this method of knowledge very often. This is evident from statements like, ‘There is no teacher in the class-room’, There is no sound here’, ‘This flower has no fragrance’. It may seem paradoxical that non-apprehension of a thing is a means to the apprehension of its non-existence (abhava), but it is clear that knowing of the non-presence serves.

Naturally different schools accept different pramanas as valid and clearly most are used together to form our knowledge. But can we really know? Can we know anything to be really true?

ONE

Carvakas, (the atheists) have declared that there is only one Pramaana and that is Pratyaksha.

TWO

Scholars belonging to the KANAADA school of thought include Anumana also and say that Pramanas are two in number, Pratyaksha and Anumana.

           TWO or THREE

Some BUDDHISTS accept two but others add the third. 

1.  Pratyaksha

2.  AnumAna

3.  Buddhavacana  (Teachings  of  the  Buddha) (shruti)

THREE

The proponents of the JAINISTS say that Shabda is definitely a Pramaana.

1   Pratyaksha  (perception)

2.   AnumAna  (inference)

3.  JinashAsana  (Teachings  of  the  24  Tirthankaras

The scholars belonging to the TARKA (logic) school of thought say that

along with Pratyaksha, Anumaana, even Upamaana (simile) should also be

considered as a Pramaana.

1.  Pratyaksha

2.  Anumaana

3.  Upamaana  

The SAANKHYA-YOGA followers claim three, as do the MADHVA      (DVAITA)  VEDAANTA  and  RAAMAANUJA  VISHISHHTAADVAITA)  VEDAANTA

1.  Pratyaksha

2.  Anumaana

3.  Shabda (shruti)

    FOUR

The NYAAYA-VAISHESHHIKA with a broader vision accept four.

1.  Pratyaksha

2.  AnumAna

3.  UpamAna  (analogy)

4.  Shabda  (testimony--sacred 

FIVE

The scholars of PRABHAAKARA  MIIMAAMSAA include Arthaapatti along with the above four.

1.      Pratyaksha

2.  AanumAna

3.  UpamAna

4.  ArthApatti  (implication)

5.  Shabda (shruti)

SIX

Three schools, the BHAATTA MEEMAAMSA, the KUMAARILA  MIIMAAMSAA and SHANKARA  (ADVAITA)  VEDAANTA take the position that along with the above five (Pratyaksha, Anumaana, Upamaana and Arthapatti), another, Anupalabdhi, should also be included.

1.  Pratyaksha

2.  AnumAna

3.  UpamAna

4.  ArthApatti

5.  Shabda (shruti)

6.  Anupalabdhi  (non-apprehension)

EIGHT

The Pouranikas (mythologists) suggest that two more Pramanas, namely, Sambhava and Aitihya should also be considered along with the above six Pramanas.

Sambhava means an educated guess. For example, when we take a vessel to an experienced cook, he can say with certainty that a particular amount of rice can be cooked in that vessel. That which brings about such knowledge is called an educated guess. Aitihya is proof through history.

Well, you have seen the possibilities. You are now in a position to decide what may be truth or not in what we have said so far and what may be the truth in what we will put forward in the following lessons and units, instead of counting on your own impressions, superstitions and faulty belief systems, aided by the clinging and craving to ideas which support the ego.

Alternatively, we can proceed with an open and flexible mind with these potential proofs until we receive the DIRECT EXPERIENCE which cannot and has not ever been denied by those who experience those moments.

EXERCISE 11

The eleventh exercise for this Unit 101 is to review all the Pramanas and tell me which you would accept or not accept and why. Then look at the eleven doubts presented by the Brahmins and tell me how you would truthfully answer those questions for yourself. Then tell me what your own transcendental doubts are that you would like resolved.

All answers reflect your personal understanding. There is no correct answer with which you will be judged. Thus your own answer is part of your own learning process.