Paths to Truth
Atha+tah is generally understood as “you have studied all other darsanā-s [there are five others]; having seen the shortcomings in them, 'now' come to Vedānta, which will provide a lasting solution”.
In this post I will discuss the purpose of sūtra 6 of chapter 1 of Yogasūtra.
In this post I will discuss the purpose of sūtra 6 of chapter 1 of Yogasūtra.
– pratyaksa anumana āgamāh pramānāni
in which Sage Patanjali defines the sources for correct understanding. Correct knowledge emanates from
1] pratyaksa - perceived through the senses
2] anumāna - inference
3] āgama - authoritative text
The first and most fundamental source is direct perception through the sense organs; ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose, as hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling. When this is not possible and not conclusive we move on to the next, through inference. To see a part and visualize the whole or see the result and conclude the cause, etc. For example, we see smoke from a distance and understand that there is a fire. When even that is not possible then resort to reference of accepted texts, to understand the truth. The ultimate text is the Veda-s.
What is the need for this sūtra? In all the standard texts of yesteryear it is the convention to state in the beginning as to how the author understands and establishes his theory/hypotheses. In keeping with this convention, Sage Patanjali has stated these three levels to arrive at the conclusion.
How does this stand in comparison to other streams of thought? Do all texts/philosophies follow the same route? There are several schools of philosophy in India. Let us look at a few of them and analyze as to how they go about establishing their conclusions.
Cārvāka :- They believe that truth is only known through pratyaksa and nothing else. What is not perceivable through the senses is not acceptable, not even logical inference. In other words, seeing is believing!
Vaisesika:- The truth can be established through pratyaksa and if not possible through anumana or inference.
Jaina:- Accepts the above two and also reliable source – referring to their liberated saints known as Tirthānkara-s.
Sānkhya:- Recognises the first two and also what it calls 'āpta vacanam', that is the sayings of āpta, a knowledgeable person who is free from defects and is disinterested in the subject under discussion.
Nyāya:- One of the six darsanā-s, Nyāya accepts the three. Pratyaksa [through external and internal organs], anumana [where there is a perfect relationship between starting point and conclusion] and śabda[the Veda-s]. It adds one more, upamāna [similarity] or understanding through comparison. For example, to someone who has not seen a tiger, it looks like a cat, but 5 to 6 times bigger.
Mimamsa:- Apart from the above four routes, this school accepts a fifth possibility to correct understanding. Arthapatti [postulation]. For example, a man is known to be alive, but is not found in his house, therefore he must be elsewhere. This school of philosophy was founded by Prabhakara. Another school founded by Kumarila Bhatta opens a sixth route, anupalabdhi [non perception]. On entering a room, we find that the room has no fans, because of the absence and not presence.
Purānikā-s:-Apart from these six, they believe in two more. Sambhava [consistency] and Aitihya [traditional belief]. Sambhava – an event 'x' always follows 'y', although no apparent logical relationship exists. It is a conclusion born out of experience. An example of Aitihya is the belief that if the woman of the house is treated badly it will ruin the family.
Vedānta:- Believes that the only valid source of all knowledge is śabda pramāna, knowledge emanating from reliable scriptures – that is ultimately Veda.
Ref: 1] An introduction to Indian Philosophy by Satischandra Chatterjee
2] Daksinamurti Stotra – Sri Sankaracharya
By DV Sridhar at Yoga Raksanam, Chennai, India
in which Sage Patanjali defines the sources for correct understanding. Correct knowledge emanates from
1] pratyaksa - perceived through the senses
2] anumāna - inference
3] āgama - authoritative text
The first and most fundamental source is direct perception through the sense organs; ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose, as hearing, touching, seeing, tasting and smelling. When this is not possible and not conclusive we move on to the next, through inference. To see a part and visualize the whole or see the result and conclude the cause, etc. For example, we see smoke from a distance and understand that there is a fire. When even that is not possible then resort to reference of accepted texts, to understand the truth. The ultimate text is the Veda-s.
What is the need for this sūtra? In all the standard texts of yesteryear it is the convention to state in the beginning as to how the author understands and establishes his theory/hypotheses. In keeping with this convention, Sage Patanjali has stated these three levels to arrive at the conclusion.
How does this stand in comparison to other streams of thought? Do all texts/philosophies follow the same route? There are several schools of philosophy in India. Let us look at a few of them and analyze as to how they go about establishing their conclusions.
Cārvāka :- They believe that truth is only known through pratyaksa and nothing else. What is not perceivable through the senses is not acceptable, not even logical inference. In other words, seeing is believing!
Vaisesika:- The truth can be established through pratyaksa and if not possible through anumana or inference.
Jaina:- Accepts the above two and also reliable source – referring to their liberated saints known as Tirthānkara-s.
Sānkhya:- Recognises the first two and also what it calls 'āpta vacanam', that is the sayings of āpta, a knowledgeable person who is free from defects and is disinterested in the subject under discussion.
Nyāya:- One of the six darsanā-s, Nyāya accepts the three. Pratyaksa [through external and internal organs], anumana [where there is a perfect relationship between starting point and conclusion] and śabda[the Veda-s]. It adds one more, upamāna [similarity] or understanding through comparison. For example, to someone who has not seen a tiger, it looks like a cat, but 5 to 6 times bigger.
Mimamsa:- Apart from the above four routes, this school accepts a fifth possibility to correct understanding. Arthapatti [postulation]. For example, a man is known to be alive, but is not found in his house, therefore he must be elsewhere. This school of philosophy was founded by Prabhakara. Another school founded by Kumarila Bhatta opens a sixth route, anupalabdhi [non perception]. On entering a room, we find that the room has no fans, because of the absence and not presence.
Purānikā-s:-Apart from these six, they believe in two more. Sambhava [consistency] and Aitihya [traditional belief]. Sambhava – an event 'x' always follows 'y', although no apparent logical relationship exists. It is a conclusion born out of experience. An example of Aitihya is the belief that if the woman of the house is treated badly it will ruin the family.
Vedānta:- Believes that the only valid source of all knowledge is śabda pramāna, knowledge emanating from reliable scriptures – that is ultimately Veda.
Ref: 1] An introduction to Indian Philosophy by Satischandra Chatterjee
2] Daksinamurti Stotra – Sri Sankaracharya
By DV Sridhar at Yoga Raksanam, Chennai, India
Posted: 2009-12-14 04:48:35