I had written an article in April 2011 on epistemological problems.¹ It was written from the point of view of a religious person, responding to someone who had lost his faith. After 10 years, I have evolved from being an ardent spiritualist to a sceptical realist. It will be interesting to analyse the article now. I shall quote relevant portions from the article and then respond to them one by one.
“1. Do I exist? What is the proof that I exist?”
Descartes (1644) says, cogito, ergo sum.² I think, therefore I am. It is common sense. Since I am thinking, if I exist, then I must exist. Otherwise, who is thinking? Even if I have been deceived into believing that I exist, there must be someone who is being deceived. Nevertheless, it isn’t a self-evident truth (svatah-pramana). Nagarjuna (c.150) considers all things and concepts to be devoid of any essence, their existence being only a temporary concoction of interdependence.³ So what I call I is only a bundle of thoughts and not a being. In other words, no one is thinking, but a coming together of thoughts in one place produces a transient concept of I. What I have realised in 20 years of philosophical study is that we can’t arrive at any conclusion on such esoteric questions. Absolute idealism is pure thought, without any possibility of proof. It may be true, but we can’t know it. If we realise it by a spiritual process and our I disintegrates, we no longer exist. Then, who will verify our realisation? In Mahayana Buddhism, there is a concept of Bodhisattva, who postpone their disintegration and return to this world to teach us the truth. However, we can’t verify if what they are saying is true and are supposed to accept it on blind faith.
The spiritualists argue that to follow such spiritual stalwarts isn’t blind faith, because we get stepwise realisations in our spiritual journey. Rupa Goswami (1541) mentions 9 steps for achieving the highest realisation (pure love of God): 1. Shraddha (faith), 2. Sadhu Sanga (association of devotees), 3. Bhajana Kriya (devotional actions), 4. Anartha Nivritti (removal of unwanted thoughts and bad karma), 5. Nishtha (dedication to devotion), 6. Ruchi (liking for devotion), 7. Asakti (attachment to God), 8. Bhava (emergence of pure emotions), and 9. Prema (pure, uninterrupted love).⁴ The initial steps are observable and may be interpreted as spiritual progress. However, who has observed the complete removal of unwanted things in anyone? Indeed, the theory itself says that the cleansing process isn’t complete till step 9. How long is one supposed to be faithful if one remains in step 4? If one abandons the process after (say) 10 years, one will be accused of impatience and falling down. There is no escape clause or possibility of falsification. The only evidence provided for the steps is anecdotal, i.e. great devotees in the past had removed all unwanted things and achieved pure love. If one points out some inconsistencies in their writings or behaviour, those will be interpreted as things coming from a higher platform, beyond what our reason can comprehend. It is more or less blind faith.
One who believes in absolute idealism may embrace it on blind faith, but an organism trying to survive and thrive in this world should be sceptical of esoteric claims. So, is there proof that I exist? Yes, I observe an organism that not only thinks but also performs various actions. It eats, sleeps, etc. I have a direct perception of myself. Unless there is some serious problem with my senses, I’ve lost my mind, or there is a better scientific explanation, I must accept direct perception. Without it, whatever we hear from great philosophers or read from scriptures also can’t be trusted, as we use our ears to hear and our eyes to read. To distrust our senses after hearing an argument from someone is ironic. Thus, direct perception of our senses (pratyaksha) is the first evidence (pramana).
“2. Can you prove to me that the basic premises of knowledge are a reality? Let me explain: why do you accept that you are a male or rasagulla is sweet or the sun is bright? Why should I accept that such entities exist, they have stated properties and I can actually know them?”
Direct perception is also not self-evident. Some things that we perceive may not be true. e.g. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We observe it moving from one horizon to the zenith and then to the other horizon. However, we know that this perception is created by the rotation of the earth on her axis. It is known by reasoning. Descartes (1644) considers even ergo sum to be logically deduced.² Premise 1: I am thinking. Premise 2: Who thinks is. Conclusion: I am. Therefore, our knowledge of the world isn’t confined to things that we perceive. We use our reason to understand the world in a better way. But there are more chances of mistakes in reasoning than in perception. Premise 1: There is smoke on the hill. Premise 2: Where there is smoke, there is fire. Conclusion: The hill is on fire. Although it is true in most cases and so justified, the second premise is not necessarily true. Some scientists might be experimenting with chemically produced smoke. The truth can be confirmed only if we reach the hill and see a fire with our own eyes. But by then, the fire may spread, destroying a lot of lives and resources. So it is better to inform the fire brigade if we see a lot of smoke. Although not as clear as direct perception, logical reasoning and inference (anumana) are the second evidence (pramana).
The spiritualists try to take advantage of the deficiencies in the first two types of evidence and convince people to distrust them. They argue that true knowledge comes from religious authorities (scriptures and masters). But that amounts to blind faith. They claim that we can read the scriptures in an open-minded manner, but the devout don’t appreciate criticism and some of them even questioning. For them, the scripture or the master is perfect and can say no wrong or do no wrong. It reminds me of Hua Guofeng’s (1977) Two Whatevers.⁵ Reasoning shouldn’t be suspended in acquiring knowledge, although it may not lead to any conclusion on certain esoteric questions. Literalism deprives us of opportunities to learn from scientific theories, as faith prevents us from questioning religious authorities. It produces cognitive dissonance in an inquisitive mind between scientific findings and religious dogma. For instance, the Shrimad Bhagavatam has a geocentric model of the universe, with a flat disk-shaped earth, surrounded by seven oceans of saltwater, sugarcane juice, wine, butter, milk, yogurt and freshwater, created by the wheels of a chariot.⁶ The model is endowed with exquisite features, including four elephants holding the earth on their shoulders and a tortoise at the bottom of the universe. I am not decrying the classic. It is a poetic book that teaches a lot of wisdom. Its stories have been part of the popular culture of India. It contains data on the history, geography, flora and fauna of India. But it isn’t a science or even a history textbook. It shouldn’t be read literally.
Nonetheless, most of the knowledge acquired by educated people comes from authorities. We know so much, only because we read a lot of books and articles and listen to a lot of lectures and debates, of those we believe to be trusted authorities — scientists, academicians, journalists, public intellectuals, philosophers, statesmen and sadly, celebrities. This is knowledge from testimonies. But we must accept testimonies only from trustworthy persons. It is similar to the cross-examination of witnesses in a legal trial. We must question authorities, critically examine them and never suspend our reason. The best knowledge does come from authorities, provided that it is accepted only after a lot of analysis. Easier said than done. The sheer volume of information that we process every day makes it impossible for us to analyse everything. We can perhaps reduce the intake of too much information, but not stop questioning. Science, history, politics, economics, philosophy and literature are all testimonies of human wisdom. This knowledge is far, far beyond what we can perceive directly through our senses and too complex for our reason to fully comprehend, let alone analyse and criticise. Even religious scriptures and spiritual masters can be profound, and we can learn a lot from them. But we must be realistic, not be blinded by faith and understand the epistemological problems in received knowledge. Thus, knowledge from authorities and testimonies of reliable persons (shabda) is the third evidence (pramana).
“3. Suppose, I axiomatically accept (that does not save you from answering the first two questions) that I exist and what I perceive is reality. However, that does not mean I can generalize my experience. Who decided that the laws of mathematics and logic are self-evident truth? Why should I accept? If you see me with a red face, shouting and banging my fists and kicking on objects around me, why do you presume that I am angry? Why does a doctor presume a disease based on symptoms (I am making it easy for you)?”
So far, I have mentioned three types of evidence: 1. Direct perception of our senses (pratyaksha), 2. Logical reasoning and inference (anumana) and 3. Knowledge from authorities and testimonies of reliable persons (shabda). These epistemological categories are accepted by the Sankhya, Yoga and Vaishnava philosophical schools. I have come across ten types of evidence in the Indian tradition: 1. Pratyaksha (perception), 2. Anumana (inference), 3. Shabda (testimony), 4. Upamana (comparison), 5. Arthapatti (circumstantial implication), 6. Anupalabdhi (perception of absence), 7. Aitihya (tradition), 8. Sambhava (inclusion), 9. Cheshta (gesture), and 10. Parishesha (elimination) and also variations and sub-types.⁷ ⁸ However, I think the first three are sufficient for a basic understanding of epistemology. The others are either different forms of the three or their combinations. I have also re-interpreted shabda to mean expert knowledge, rather than religious scriptures.
Now, there is no need to axiomatically accept anything. Truth must be based on some form of observation and reasoning, as I have discussed before. There are some things we may never know. We must admit that and move on. Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we put blind faith in someone. Yes, faith is a necessary element in our upbringing. Parents, elders and teachers nurture us in our childhood. Friends help us. We share our lives with our spouse and children. All these relationships are built upon trust. But there have been enough abuses to know that blind faith doesn’t work. We must learn critical thinking. Possession of authority doesn’t make someone a fountain of truth. We must learn to question authorities. I know there is a fear of lapsing into solipsism, nihilism or some other form of subjectivism and being unable to maintain sanity. Those who have been trained in an authoritarian system find it unsettling to be questioned about their beliefs. Hence, it is necessary to teach children critical thinking. We should be confident in a situation where questions are raised and points are vigorously debated. For those who have freed themselves from an authoritarian system and are trying to live in a new way, it takes time. We need good friends who can make the journey easier for us.
“4. Suppose, you tell me that you got 90% in your test. Why should I believe? What is the proof? Even if you present your mark-sheet and also your academic authority’s testimony, how do I know that the documents are not forged or the authority is not lying? On what premise does the law-court decide such cases? Why does the court trust witnesses and documents; even award capital punishment on those evidences?”
So we need some form of authority, based on some well-defined criteria for the determination of truth. But how do we decide which authorities are valid? In the social realm, we judge authorities based on their representative character, consent of the people, moral standing and consequences of their actions. There could be some other points, but right now, four are good enough. Can these criteria be applied to knowledge also? I understand that there are problems with this. First, radical leftists criticise science for being dominated by white men or, in India, manipulated by the Brahmanical patriarchy. Just because the scientific community is dominated by one type of people, does it mean that scientific knowledge isn’t correct? The second point is even more problematic. If the majority of the people are young-earth creationists, does it invalidate scientific theories? Certainly not. Even the third criterion may be questioned. If a scientist is morally corrupt, does it invalidate his work? But it makes the scientist less trustworthy. There have been instances of scientific research made for corporate gains or an ideological agenda. Herein, critical thinking is important. People must have critical thinking to question any form of authority, including scientific theories. Fourth, consequences don’t prove the legitimacy of a truth-claim, but they influence our trust in it. Science has gained respectability in the last few centuries because it has helped us immensely to improve our lives, from fighting disease to modern communications. Thus, more or less, the criteria for the legitimacy of social authorities aren’t the same as those of expert knowledge.
We can turn to the scientific method for authority. It provides a well-established criterion for knowledge. Those who apply it rigorously in their knowledge production should be considered true experts. But we shouldn’t accept whatever they tell us blindly. We must apply our critical thinking. Now, I have used this term several times. What is critical thinking? If it wasn’t clear before, we can say that it requires some level of knowledge, training in a logical manner of questioning and a substantial degree of honesty and humility, i.e. not to get distracted by profit-motive or ego. It also requires a culture of freedom of thought and expression. Another important term is modernism. It means the need to update knowledge with new findings. Religious scriptures contain beliefs that were pertinent to a particular point in history and to a particular part of the world. The apologists justify the beliefs using modern arguments and may even reinterpret certain parts to make them acceptable to modern audiences. However, they maintain the immutable truth of the scriptures. Most believers think that scriptural knowledge is the revelation of a supreme deity. Hence, it is perfect. Doubts created by scientific theories are errors of the human ego. Modernism rejects such thinking. It recognises the limited nature of scriptural knowledge and interprets it based on observation and reasoning. The sun going around the earth is a good example. It is a daily observation. It is no surprise that the major religious scriptures endorse the observation. The old knowledge should be updated with modern scientific findings. The literalist position is untenable, and the apologist position is, I believe, disingenuous. Therefore, scientific method (vaijnanika vidhi), critical thinking (samalochana) and modernism (adhunikavada) are the fundamental pillars of knowledge.
“5. How do you know there is a reality beyond what you perceive (if that is a reality)? Why do you think that there is God? Just because you feel, does it make it a reality? How do you know that the world existed before your birth? May be time itself began with you. Suppose, Krishna Himself comes to you. How do you know He is Krishna, not some demon in disguise or your own hallucination? Suppose, while chanting tears rolled from your eyes and your hairs stood on end, is that the criteria for accepting the validity of chanting? I do not experience, but you do. Prove me that it works.”
The question is whether we can know anything beyond direct perception. The materialist (Charvaka) position is that direct perception is the only evidence. Reality consists of four perceptible elements — earth, water, fire and air. The self is a combination of these elements in the body and expires upon the death of the body. But as established before, knowledge from direct perception is very limited. It may be enough for survival in an undeveloped society, but for understanding the workings of society and nature, reasoning is necessary. Reasoning leads to the advancement of knowledge. Modern science is based on a very high level of reasoning that allows for complex theorisation and mathematical models. Moreover, as individuals, we can know very little, as we can’t conduct experiments and theorise in diverse fields, if any at all. So we have to rely on expert knowledge, knowledge produced by people who have studied a particular subject, conducted experiments and observed results. Hence, the trinity of evidence (pramana trayi) is a necessary epistemological position.
“Actually, from birth, we accept certain self-evident truths and that makes our life simple. All our questions should be based on certain authoritative premises; otherwise, there are no answers.”
In order to justify the superiority of scriptural authority to observation and reasoning, the religionists emphasise the revealed nature of their scriptures and to justify the revelation claim, they emphasise its self-evidence (svatah-pramana). The reliance on self-evidence to ascertain the truth has already been contradicted. I have already admitted that we can’t arrive at any conclusion on many esoteric questions, thus taking an agnostic position. However, just because we don’t know something, it doesn’t mean we put blind faith in someone. Truth must be based on some form of observation and reasoning. Truth can never be axiomatic or self-evident. Even expert knowledge has to be critically analysed. Is a little amount of blind faith necessary in our quest for truth? Faith needn’t be blind. First, we must trust our cognitive faculties — seeing, hearing, thinking, etc. They are required to make sense of anything. Without them, acquiring any knowledge is impossible. Second, we must trust some standards of observation and reasoning that are also accepted by other people. They are needed to develop common knowledge that can be collected, stored and distributed. The common knowledge is accumulated over many generations. Religions tend to fossilise knowledge of a particular time and place by making sacred texts immutable. These texts contain knowledge developed over a long period of time, acquiring a particular form due to a particular interpretation of the knowledge by a person, persons or a people at a particular point in history and in a particular part of the world. The knowledge has to be updated with new findings. Science provides such a framework. Popper (1959) and Kuhn (1962) have debated about the framework of scientific progress.⁹ ¹⁰ But they are in agreement that science is about the progress of human knowledge. Thus, we need to have faith in 1. Our cognitive faculties to make sense of reality, and 2. Some standards of observation and reasoning to achieve common knowledge. We accept them, not as self-evident truths, but as pragmatic necessities for knowledge acquisition. Science provides the right framework for it. Religions are problematic because they are fixated on some old books as the perfect standards for knowing reality.
Old books do contain wisdom. We are sometimes so engrossed in short-term materialistic goals that our efforts create psychological, social and environmental problems. Some of the great literature from the past teach us the need to introspect, to aim for something higher than self-gratification and to make sacrifices for future generations. They give deep insights into human nature and so have stood the test of time. I was inspired by many verses of the Bhagavad Gita, e.g. ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते । सङ्गात्सञ्जायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते ॥ क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोहः सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः । स्मृतिभ्रंशाद्बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति ॥ “When a man dwells in his mind on the objects of sense, attachment to them is produced. From attachment springs desire, and from desire comes anger. From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, destruction of intelligence and from the destruction of intelligence he perishes” (BG 2.62–63, trans. Radhakrishnan).¹³ असंशयं महाबाहो मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलम् । अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च गृह्यते ॥ “Without doubt, O mighty-armed, the mind is difficult to curb and restless but it can be controlled, O son of Kunti, by constant practice and non-attachment” (BG 6.35, trans. Radhakrishnan).¹³ कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥ “To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive; neither let there be in thee any attachment to inaction” (BG 2.47, trans. Radhakrishnan).¹³ I interpret it to mean that we must perform our duties steadfastly, even if we don’t get appreciated or rewarded for it. It doesn’t mean we should work without considering the consequences. Rather, we should always act with calm minds, after analysing the consequences of our actions.
The message I get from the Bhagavad Gita is that if we act from anger or attachment, our intelligence isn’t able to differentiate between good and bad, and so we should always act with calm minds, after analysing the consequences of our actions. Even if our minds are influenced by wrong motivations, it is possible to correct our actions through knowledge and mind control. Hence, modernism doesn’t mean rejection of ancient wisdom and hatred of our past. It means updating the teachings of sages with scientific data. It means questioning religious authorities, who quote scriptures to support absurd claims. It means educating society about the scientific method.
“… I consider such doubts totally unscientific. But they are valid per se. That does not mean they can be answered.Every question cannot be answered. One or even multiple failures to get results does not disprove a mathematical law …”
Popper (1959) considers falsifiability as the standard for a theory to be scientific.⁹ If a theory can’t be falsified, i.e. it is methodologically impossible to disprove it, then it can’t be a scientific theory. e.g. God created this world from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is a statement that includes two parts: 1. God created the world, and 2. The world came from nothing. The first part isn’t a scientific claim, as theists tend to define God as a transcendent being, not someone we can take as a variable in a scientific theory. Some consider him to exist in the gaps of scientific knowledge. If scientists are unable to explain a phenomenon, the argument is that the missing factor is God. Such a God is known as the God of gaps. However, more and more gaps have been filled over the years, pushing God into a more and more transcendental position, almost to a deistic role. The other option is rejection of modern science, based on literalism, i.e. considering a scripture to be the final word on knowledge. I have already argued against such an attitude.
The second part of the statement is now considered a scientific claim, according to the Big Bang Theory. The observation of an expanding universe tends to indicate that the universe was once really very small, which could be further reduced to nothingness, even the absence of time and space. Everything then came from nothing due to the Big Bang. Some theists find it convenient, because the cause of the Big Bang is unknown and everything coming from nothing leaves a gap for God to intervene as the unmoved mover of Aristotle (350 BCE).¹² Indeed, the theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre (1931), after which it has been supported by scientific observations.¹³ Anyway, the debate on God is inconclusive, and we have limited lifespans. So we can’t wait till we get the whole picture to function in the world. We have to be humble and perform our actions with imperfect knowledge.
“Actually, we are not trained to accept the sabda pramanam. It requires training, beginning with practice of brahmacharyam. Why cannot you accept … , even if you feel you did not get results? It is difficult because we are not trained. Then someone will raise the question that we are actually brain-washed to accept sabda pramanam or that there are so many scriptures (which is correct). Then you are brain-washed to accept laws of mathematics, logic, grammar, etc., which cannot be empirically verified, if empirical evidence is accepted as reality. What do you say? As far as multiplicity of scriptures is concerned, sabda pramanam is not just about revelation of one person. That is the mistake committed by all the religious sects. It requires a more comprehensive premise, which provided by the Vedic authority. It is not a revelation at a point in history to one person at a particular geographical location. It is about an immemorial tradition of multiple schools with the culture of disputation as well as self-realization through a spiritual process. It is jnana-vijnana sahitam.”
After raising many questions and doubts, I finally arrived at the crux of my argument.¹ I wanted the reader to have faith in shabda pramana as scriptural authority. Among the scriptures, I argued for the superiority of Vedic authority because the Vedic texts aren’t history-centric or prophetic revelations, but are based on a tradition of debates and spiritual processes. Kautilya (c. 300 BCE) considers Vedic texts (trayi) to include: 1. Rik, 2. Yajur, 3. Sama, 4. Atharva and 5. Itihasa (in some sources, known as the 5th Veda), along with six Vedanga: 1. Shiksha (phonetics), 2. Kalpa (rituals), 3. Vyakarana (grammar), 4. Nirukta (glossary), 5. Chhanda (prosody), and 6. Jyotisha (astronomy).¹⁴ To the list, we can add four Upanga: 1. Nyaya (logic), 2. Mimamsa (hermeneutics), 3. Purana (considered as the same category as Itihasa), and 4. Dharmashastra and four Upaveda: 1. Sthapatya (architecture), 2. Dhanush (military), 3. Gandharva (performing arts), and 4. Ayush (medicine).¹⁵ ¹⁶ Together, they are called the 18 branches of knowledge (vidya). What Hinduism is today is related to the Vedic tradition, although at varying degrees of acceptance, indifference or rejection.
Rajiv Malhotra (2016) argues that Hinduism is an open architecture that allows for integration of different and emerging points of views into a pre-existing network of ideas called the Indra’s Net.¹⁷ Similarly, Talageri (2019) considers Hinduism to be an amalgamation of religious features of different parts of India and beyond, including Vedic tradition, nature worship, temple worship of gods and goddesses and philosophical and meditative traditions.¹⁸ Considering these definitions, Vedic or Hindu civilisation shouldn’t be opposed to the scientific method, critical thinking and modernism. Unfortunately, it isn’t always true. In some institutions, students are taught to disbelieve biological evolution, the heliocentric solar system and the galactic universe, as well as the open architecture of Hinduism. Talageri (2021) and Elst (2020) criticise Hindu enthusiasts, who condemn linguistic theory and promote outlandish claims due to Puranic descriptions or the dogma that everything good originates from the Vedas.¹⁹ ²⁰ I don’t want to go into their criticisms here. My point is that shabda pramana doesn’t mean scriptural literalism. Scriptures have to be scrutinised against other evidence.
“Although we have lost lot of gray matter by releasing semen and filling our minds with other garbage, by the mercy … , we have got this rare opportunity. Let us utilize it and make our knowledge and realization perfect. You will surely get the stated results by chanting. ceto darpana marjanam… that we can experience immediately. I do. I bet you do too. If not, then you decide. Otherwise, join the sankirtana movement (param vijayate sri krsna sankirtanam).”
These were my concluding lines. They reflect a pessimistic view of the material world. This material world is evil, enjoying our senses is evil and mundane knowledge is evil. They are all garbage. In the garbage, we have one gem, faith. Faith is achieved after several lifetimes on earth. It is an opportunity to hold on to the grace of God, or as it used to be, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Chanting is the bane of all evil. It clears the mirror of our heart. It provides us with an instant high, and we can stay high forever. It will ultimately lead us to complete victory over the material world. This vision was so addictive that it captivated me for 10 years, at the prime of my youth. Then, I withdrew from it. It had created a cognitive dissonance. On one hand, I had a dream of rejecting all that the material world had in store for me and embracing a spiritual world of God in millions of forms, with his millions of energies, his family members, his friends, his servants, demigods, demons, interplanetary movements, magical weapons, epic battles, romances and tragedies. On the other hand, I had some knowledge of philosophy, history, politics and religion, academic research, the promise of a teaching career and a family to look after. I couldn’t sacrifice my present prospects and responsibilities for a fantasy.
Even if we ignore the trinity of evidence and believe that we are too deluded to know the reality, which religion should we place our blind faith in? Since we are so deluded, how can we even decide? Even if we choose one, since we are deluded, it may well be a wrong choice. The apologists argue that their own religion is the rational choice one would make, and only due to ignorance or wrong motivations, one would overlook or abandon their true religion. Some also argue that we should examine their religion with an open mind and only after proper examination, we should decide. God was ultimately guiding us to the right path. Are 10 years enough to examine one religion? Can one examine each and every religion in one lifetime? Does God only guide those who join their religion? What about those who exit their religion? Are they being guided or misguided by God? The fundamentalists won’t even bother making any arguments. Most of them believe in a sort of predestination, i.e. God has decided to save some and condemn others. In such a scenario, it isn’t easy to leave a belief system. One may assume that one is deluded or condemned. There are complicated withdrawal symptoms. It takes many years to become normal.
So, we can summarise the critical analysis as:
There are three primary sources of knowing or evidence of reality (pramana): 1. Direct perception of the senses (pratyaksha), 2. Inference and logical reasoning (anumana) and 3. Testimonies of reliable witnesses and conclusions of experts in a field of knowledge (shabda). The three types of evidence must be scrutinised against one another. Religions have a problematic framework because they are fixated on a particular interpretation of knowledge at a particular point in history and in a particular part of the world. Science, on the other hand, believes in the progress of human knowledge. It has three components: 1. Scientific method (vaijnanika vidhi), 2. Critical thinking (samalochana) and 3. Modernism (adhunikavada). Hinduism provides an open architecture of integration of different and emerging points of view into a pre-existing network of ideas. It shouldn’t reject science for religious dogma.
References
- Sarmah, Saurav (2011), “What is a valid query and what is a self-evident truth?”, Dandavats, 17 April 2011. URL: http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9496
- Descartes, Rene (1644), Principles of Philosophy (Latin: Principia Philosophiae).
- Nagarjuna (c. 150), The Root Verses of the Middle Way (Sanskrit: Mula Madhyama Karika).
- Goswami, Rupa (1541), The Nectarian Ocean of Devotion (Sanskrit: Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu).
- Hua Guofeng (1977), Two Whatevers (Chinese: Liang ge fang shi): 凡是毛主席作出的决策，我们都坚决维护；凡是毛主席的指示，我们都始终不渝地遵循 “We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave.”
- Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (1977), Shrimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavata Purana. URL: https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/
- The ten evidences are mentioned in Atreya, B.L. (1948: 44–45), The Elements of Indian Logic. URL: http://raoinseattle.com/library/03%20Hinduism/Atreya%20BL%201948%20on%20Pramana.pdf
- A slightly different list is given in Dasa, Satyanarayana (2015: 46), Sri Tattva Sandarbha: Vaishnava Epistemology and Ontology.
- Popper, Karl (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
- Kuhn, Thomas (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
- S. Radhakrishnan (1971), The Bhagavad Gita, Revised Indian Edition.
- Aristotle (350 BCE), Physics (Greek: Phusike Akroasis).
- Lemaitre, Georges (1931), “Contributions to a British Association Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe”, Nature,128: 704–706.
- Kautilya (c. 300 BCE), Arthashastra 1.3.1–2. URL: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arthashastra/Book_I
- Khandavalli, Shankara Bharadwaj (2021), “Upanga”, Hindupedia. URL: http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Upanga
- There are slight variations in the list of Upaveda. URL: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/upaveda
- Malhotra, Rajiv (2016), Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity, Revised Edition. URL: https://indrasnetbook.com/
- Talageri, Shrikant (2019), “The Primarily Dravidian, and Pan-Indian, Nature of Hinduism”, Shrikant G. Talageri Blog, 5 October 2019. URL: https://talageri.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-primarily-dravidian-and-pan-indian_30.html
- Talageri, Shrikant (2021), “Indology-Bashing”, Shrikant G. Talageri Blog, 12 January 2021. URL: https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/01/indology-bashing.html
- Elst, Koenraad (2020), “AIT and the science of linguistics”, Koenraad Elst Blog, 16 April 2020. URL: http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2020/04/ait-and-science-of-linguistics.html
Published as “What is a valid query and what is a self-evident truth? A critical analysis”, Medium, 10 May 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment