Lessons prepared by
M.S.HARI Raamaanuja Daasan (mshari@usa.net)
Post your queries to
visistadvaitha-tutorial-discussion-group
or send mail to M.S.Hari,
the author of this tutorial.
The Pramaana A lively explanation
In the first lesson, we briefly studied the four categories which philosophy claims to put any concept into such categories and then do a synthesis to establish concepts. Those four categories were stated as Pramaana, Premeya, Pramatha & Prama. We also say the various pramaanas accepted in our Visistaadvaita Shree Vaishnavam namely Pratyaksham, Anumaanam and Sabdam(Veda). We also saw the Ubhya Vedanta Tradition meaning.
In the second lesson, we saw in brief, the historical background of our Shree Sampradayam and also in a very very condensed form, the concepts of our Matham. Those concepts of our Matham were just stated but needs explanations with proof. It will be dealt with in detail in future step by step. The third lesson as given below is the first step towards it.
This lesson further explains the concept of Pramanan which is one among the four items mentioned in the first lesson (Pramaana, Premeya, Pramatha & Prama). This explanation is given in this lesson because of the need to stress the difference between the validity/limitations of various pramanas and the importance of Sabda Pramana which is Veda/Sruti.
This lesson is in the form of logical arguments to bring out the importance of Pramanam. I therefore request the reader to read this lesson in full and then comprehend it.
An atheist met me once and we started discussing. On
seeing my God-fearing nature, he started to argue with me as follows:
The atheist said,
I replied
The atheist with a big laughter said,
He further said,
He then continued his laughter in a very loud manner. He
thought that he has made me dumb without a counter-argument to refute
his arguments and prove something against his ideas of atheism.
Anyway I listened to all of his words carefully. After he stopped his
laughter, I gently said to him,
The atheist got irritated. He seriously said,
I replied
The atheist on hearing my counter-argument said with a giggle,
I spoke to the atheist and asked him to commit one thing which is
The
atheist repeated that he commits the same and only Pratyaksha
pramanam is valid. I said to the atheist
On hearing my counter-arguments in the form
of questions, the atheist was silent for a minute and then the
atheist asked me
I
saw the face of the atheist when he was saying this to me it
was pale and he has totally stopped his laughter and giggle. He has
become totally serious. I now addressed the atheist as follows:
The atheist now said,
I then took him with me to meet another person who called himself as a
Believer in God.
See this my dear friend! Have you ever seen
the God using your eyes?
Have you ever heard his voice using your ears?
Have you touched him or you have ever sensed his
touch?
Have you smelt his odor using your nose?
Have you tasted him using your tongue?
He said, Similarly have you sensed your
Soul which you call as Jeevatman in any of
these manners?
No to all these questions
raised by him.
Then how
come you believe that there is a God? How come you
believe that there is something in each of our bodies called
Jeevatman (soul)? None have sensed these two using their
sense organs.
Stop believing in all these
things they should be only imaginary. Who can prove their
presence using the application of sense organs? As far as life is
there, one must enjoy it. There is nothing after death. Stop thinking
of reward for good deeds and punishment for bad deeds. Do what you
like!
My dear friend, your talk has
some truth in it and more falsehood in it.
All I said is truth! You yourself
accepted that you have not sensed either the God or the individual
soul (Jeevatman) using sense organs. How is that you say that my talk
has falsehood?.
No one can sense and thus know
the God or the individual soul using the sense organs. In that
manner, your argument is having truth. My answer to your questions
regarding Have you sensed God/individual soul using sense
organs? was No in this context of truth only. By
saying No I never meant that God and Jeevatman
cannot be known at all. They cannot be known by application of sense
organs like eyes, ears etc. but can be known by other authorities.
What
else could be considered as authority other than the Pratyaksha
Pramanam (application of sense organs and thus getting knowledge)?
Why cannot we accept that there is no God or no Jeevaatman
(individual soul) as they are not sensed by sense organs?
Are you atheist committing that any entity that cannot be
sensed by application of sense organs is not existing?
Have you not
come across Ultrasonic sound in science which cannot be
heard by our ears but still proved by science as existing entity?
Have you not come across Ultra Violet light which cannot
be seen by our eyes but still proved by science as existing entity?
Have you ever seen the structure of atom which science has proved to
be composed of certain constituents? Have you touched it? Have you
tasted it? Have you smelt it? How is that you comprehend the dual
nature of light? It is also natural that two individual may get
different knowledge about the same object using their sense organs in
different ways because of the effectiveness of each individuals
sense organs. Further each sense organs has its own limitations in
its applications.
See this my friend, you have wonderfully
argued and made my commitment to be null and void. But this does not
prove the presence of God or individual soul. Science has proved
those entities that you mentioned like ultra violet rays, ultrasonic
sound etc by experimenting, observation, and inferences. There is
scientific scriptural authority for it given by scientists.
Your
own words prove that you accept the reality/presence/existence of
certain entities which cannot be comprehended by application of our
senses organs.
Yes.
We both met the Believer in God. I
questioned him as follows:
(I then introduced
our atheist to the Believer in God.).
The Believer in God first said,
The atheist got irritated. He said
The Believer in God was silent for a minute
and then addressed the atheist,
I got
surprised. The Believer in God continued his argument
with the atheist as follows:
The Believer in God was happy thinking that
he has proved the existence of God in the way in which the atheist
agreed. The atheist looked very confused when the Believer
in God used the Anumaana pramanam.See this my friend who believe in
God! I have another friend who is this atheist.
Both met each other
with contempt in their sights. After this introduction, I addressed
the Believer in God as follows:
You seem to believe
in God. But this atheist is a non-believer. He was initially very
rigid with his idea that as God and individual soul are not sensed by
sense organs, their reality/existence is imaginary only and not
truth. I argued with him and as a result of it the atheist agreed the
reality/existence of certain entities which cannot be comprehended by
application of sense organs. Still he wants proof for the existence
of God. He accepted experimenting, observation and inference. Also he
accepts entities proved in the scientific scriptures produced by
scientists as a result of their experiments, observation and
inferences. How is that you can make him to believe in God or in
individual soul?
We can see that when one does good gets rewards and if one does
bad deeds gets punishments. This fear and belief makes the man to
comprehend the presence of God.
I have seen many culprits enjoying and many kind-hearted people
suffering.
Let me prove to you the
presence of God in the way you accept. You have accepted that there
are certain things, which are beyond the comprehension of our sense
organs. You accept their reality by experiments, observation, and
inference. Scientific scriptures based on these are valid for you.
Let me come to your own way and prove the existence of God".
See my dear atheist friend! Have
you not seen a potter making a pot! On seeing the pot, dont you
think that even for making a small pot, a potter is there present as
the cause and therefore why cannot this great universe have a great
cause like this! That cause of this universe is God! This is my
inference based on observation. Many people have written their ideas
about God in this way. You can accept any form/name for him.
Therefore the man made scriptural authority is also there in this
regard.
I addressed both of them and said,
On hearing my words, not only the atheist got shocked but also the Believer in God got shocked equally. The atheist said
The Believer in God angrily said
I addressed both of them in calm tone
The Believer in God says why cannot we infer the presence of God and hence prove it based on observation. He is ready to accept the man made scriptures in this regard. The Believer in God uses Anumaana Pramanam by this manner. Even the Anumaana pramaanam cannot prove the presence of God. He sees the potter as the cause of the pot. He thinks now For a small pot itself, there is a cause who is a potter. Why cannot the great universe have a cause like this? That cause which I infer is God. At least there must some super-power (which I call as God). This is totally a wrong idea and does not prove the existence of God in any manner.
I will give you the reasons now. In the example/observation given by Believer in God, first let us reason out what sort of cause the potter is in making the pot. The potter is just an instrumental cause as he wishes to make the pot and makes it. There is another cause involved here and that is the material cause! The mud is the material cause as it undergoes changes in the hands of the instrumental cause (potter) and becomes the pot. One more cause is still involved here and that is the accessory cause. The accessories are water, the wheel, a stick, fire etc., which are accessories in making the pot and without these accessories, the potter (instrumental cause) cannot make the pot from mud (material cause).
If we extend the inference of Believer in God, then a list of questions arises which cannot be answered by both of our friends. Those questions are :
Where are the answers to these questions? Therefore if we infer the God like this then the God thus established does not turn up with omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, purity and divinity".
Both of my friends (atheist and Believer in God) were as silent as grave. I added that
My friends (atheist and Believer in God) accepted that they do not have answer for any of my questions.
Both of my friends (atheist and Believer in God) continued to be as silent as grave. Both of them realized limitation of Anumaana Pramaanam also. Both of them after a deep breath, said
I replied to them
They said,
I then started to explain to them in detail as follows.
This explanation will be continued in the Lesson 4.