In Part 1 (https://indiachapter.in/user/article/1/19/24) of this series, the first three epistemic tools, namely Pratyakśa, Anumāna and Upamāna were introduced. In this article and the subsequent parts, the remaining three will be discussed.

Pramāṇa 4: Śabda

Literally this means ‘verbal testimony.’ This is also referred to as ‘āgama.’ Both śabda and āgama are all-encompassing terms as verbal and written means of acquiring knowledge from somebody else is considered to be a valid mean. Paramount point with śabda aiding in acquiring valid knowledge is if and only if it comes from a ‘reliable source.’ Establishing reliability is a highly non-trivial task and hence this has been at the heart of a longstanding debate. 

There may be errors in the previously introduced pramāṇās, namely pratyakśa, anumāna and upamāna. Errors can be best explained through examples. Imagine someone has a faulty vision or impaired hearing or, say, is affected by a virus that has affected the olfaction. In all these cases, pratyakśa may not be of any help to gain valid knowledge. Even when these sensory faculties are perfectly functioning, there could still be erroneous perception. Remember Duryodhana in the māyāmahal where he was mesmerized and in fact which led to him developing rancor against Draupadi and Pāṇdavās which in turn resulted in the epic Mahābhārata. 

In the case of anumāna, remember that this epistemic tool requires one to have an a priori experience in the past (self-experience (smoke-fire) or collective experience (hydrometer reading-amount of water in milk)). Hence there is an element of ‘past memory’, albeit very little, that is quintessential in this case. Technically, whatever I am calling as ‘past memory’ is referred to as ‘vyāpti’ and there are very elaborate techniques, arguments that analyse this feature in minute details. In short anumāna or inference is not completely independent.

Śabda somehow circumvents the problems discussed above. It is enough for us to know that fire would burn our finger if we touch it. This verbal testimony from a second/third/nth party would suffice for us to learn that fire will burn our finger if touched. It shows both the necessity and sufficiency of this epistemic tool. This example also shows the problem with upamāna. Fire burns wood and fire also burns our finger. So from this, one may be tempted to draw corollary between wood and finger which in fact is a wrong comparison.

Major issue with śabda is about the reliability of the source. When does a source become reliable? This is a non-trivial question. One’s biological mother is indeed a reliable source for a kid when she points out and says so and so is the father of that kid. This is on a very personal level and at a public level there is another instance of reliability that is strongly correlated with large follower count, irrespective of any domain. Or saying differently, our society has evolved in a way that has subliminally drawn a one-to-one map between large fan following and reliability. 

This is the reason why an organization is more reliable than an individual when it comes to imparting, say, valid knowledge. A well-established publication house elicits more credibility than an individual blogger. Reliability attains paramount magnitude if the organization has the blessings of the ruling government. This is almost universal and eternal right from the days when the Church collaborated with the Romans and together marched ahead to conquer and harvest souls to the recent fiction The Boys through the evangelicals assuring testimony of redemption to the British in their zeal of amassing colonies.

And exploiting this heightened sense of reliability, in our country we have our own history written in a concocted manner. For generations together this written testimony is the truth and constitutes valid knowledge as one cannot have a direct experience of the past. We experience the past through the history written by historians. So we see here how important this epistemic tool is which is not just confined to the closed quarters of hair-splitting philosophers! At this juncture, although a slight digression, I am tempted to quote Winston Churchill, “A nation that forgets its past has no future”   

Talking of reliability correlated with mass following, we see celebrities; say from the cinema or the cricket world double up as salesmen endorsing some commercial enterprises’ manufactured goods. Brand’s trustworthiness gets thereby increased and needless to say there is public appeal. This is also the fundamental principle on which the entire gamut of journalism functions. Similar is the case with prominent handles in social media whose ‘reliability’ is measured based on the number of people who are following them, number of ‘likes’ a post gets etc. 

Academic publications are no exceptions. Number of times a research paper gets ‘cited’ is given importance and there are instances where despite a paper published in ‘high impact’ (impact in turn depends on how often the papers in that journal get cited) journals, it had to be withdrawn due to either genuine errors or fraudulence. (Readers may be interested in this site which is a database of retracted papers: http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?). Peer reviewed publications attains the status of a valid source of knowledge and this is how any scientific research work progressively builds on the past works. In this case of paper writing, mere citation of literature is akin to śabda.

Coming back to śabda, we therefore see that there are many a thing that are beyond our direct/indirect perception and inference or analogy. This becomes even more apparent when it concerns matters related to inquiry about, say, consciousness. In the words of the recent Physics laureate Roger Penrose, “It told me that whatever is going on in our understanding is not computational” for he starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain (Ref: http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute).

So in our Indian context this epistemic tool of śabda acts as a distinguishing factor. For matters related to self, Ātman, consciousness, the Veda is considered as the śabda pramāṇa. The schools that take śabda as a pramāṇa are referred to as the Āstika schools and this gets wrongly translated as theistic school. Theism is an Abrahamic concept that has got to do with the belief in the Holy trinity. All Hindus are by default atheists or infidels in the eyes of a believing Christian or an Islamic person. So using the term theism and atheism in the Hindu context is problematic. Nyāya, Vaiseśikha, Sānkhya, Yoga, Mīmāmsa and Vedānta are the six schools from lore that consider veda as a śabda pramāṇa. Other schools such as Buddhism may have >50% overlap in terms of reckoning the epistemic tools but just because Buddhism rejects the Vedas as a śabda pramāṇa, it is classified as a Nāstika school. 

The Veda is considered apauruśeya and hence there is no question of any ‘author bias.’ That is why it becomes the primary source of verbal or written testimony. Its importance is beautifully captured in an anecdote from the life of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa who went to Nālanda, undercover, with the soul objective of refuting Buddhism and upholding the Vedas. The anecdote further notes that one day when the teacher Dhaṛmakīṛti was ridiculing the Vedas, Kumārila protested. Rules of apostasy prevailed back then and consequently Kumārila was awarded capital punishment. He was thrown from a high University tower. But Kumārila had the blessings of the Vedas and he survived albeit losing one of his eyes. This is because when he was descending in air he prayed, “If the Vedas are true, I will be saved.” The fact that he imposed this condition on the infallibility of the Vedas, his punishment was the loss of the eye, encouraging others to not pose such conditions on the Vedas.

 

In the next part, I will dwell on the other two epistemic tools, namely aṛthāpatti and anupalabdhi.

Tags :

• Indic Knowledge Systems65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media