Our section on philosophy will delve deep into the fundamental questions of life, offering an overview of the vast and penetrating wisdom of the Gaudiya Vaishnava school.
ON ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE
A philosopher will first ask, "What is the means to know?" In studying this perennial question, the philosophers have categorized all methods of attaining knowledge into three basic categories:
(1) Pratyaksa (sense perception): The knowledge directly perceived by the five sense organs and the mind is known as pratyaksa. The knowledge perceived through the senses can never be fully relied upon due to our inherent human defects. Our senses are limited by time and space, and our mind is biased by various desires. We do not see things very far or very near, and we may see things which hold no substance in reality, such as a mirage or a magician's show -- we mistake it to be something it is not, and we are confused over the reality of the matter. Even the reality of a mundane object can not be known with certainty through the means of sensory perception. How could transcendence then be proven through our material senses?
(2) Anumana (reasoning): Knowledge inferred from our observations is known as anumana. For example, we have seen smoke and fire together. When we observe smoke rising from behind a mountain, we reason there is fire. However, we may have mistaken a cloud for smoke, or a rain cloud may have already extinguished the fire, leaving only the smoke behind, and therefore our conclusion is false. If the reason is mistakenly understood, or there is an exception in the principle, our conclusion will be false. Therefore, reasoning is not an infallible means of acquiring knowledge. Moreover, being limited to our experiences in this world, reasoning lacks a capacity to reach into the specifics of transcendence with any degree of certainty.
(3) Shabda (revealed knowledge): For knowledge to be beyond human limitations, it must descend from beyond the human plane. The scriptures are understood to be apauruseya, or of divine origin. The writings of the sages are born of divine revelation, consisting of knowledge handed down by God, which is then passed on and preserved over the generations to provide an adequate means of insight into the transcendence. Naturally, for accepting the evidence of scripture, an initial leap of faith is required -- but is this not the same in accepting any lesson from anyone? Initial faith is certainly required before understanding literature on any given subject matter, in order to facilitate study and to eventually progress to a stage of personal realization and divine insight.
The Gaudiya school accepts a threefold division of revealed knowledge, namely (1) shastra -- the considerations of the scripture, (2) sadhu -- the considerations of the saints, and (3) guru -- the considerations of one's own guru. There is a relation of interdependence between the three. The guru is a representative of scriptures and the predecessor saints, the saints' teachings must be in harmony with the teachings of scripture and understood with the help of the guru, and the various scriptural statements are properly understood through the teachings of the saints and the guru. If the testimony of one of them is not compatible with the other two, it is not to be accepted as conclusive.
That being said, we may legitimately ask: Why should there be any defect in the scripture, since it is said to originate from God? The scripture itself answers the question: The vast body of Vedic literature is compared to a wish-fulfilling tree offering fruits of choice to one and all to facilitate their spiritual growth according to their inclinations in any given situation of life. What is a valid advice for one may be contrary to the progress of another. Consequently, a tradition of saints and a realized guru who teaches the scripture in a relevant way is necessary for o
Answered by
Point
, an ibibo Master,
at
10:32 AM on November 22, 2008
