Page 23 - Bhakthinivedana 2012 January English Magazine.pmd
P. 23
...continued from page 18 as it does not get proved as ‘aprama:nam’. As
soon as it is proved as having a reason to become
Let us consider the following reasoning:
‘aprama:nam’ , it gets discarded.
1. If we listen to a sound, the meaning of the sound
Often, we find that one tends to disregard a source
is discerned, when we have the knowledge of the
of knowledge as unauthentic the moment one
relationship between the word and about the
comes to know that, the subject which was till then
object/subject it tells us. This rule applies to the
considered as authentic was actually spoken by an
ve:das too. But meaningful sounds can be rendered
ana:ptha!!
by both, an a:ptha and even an ana:ptha or
insincere person. But how can we accept the words Thence, going by what the followers of the nya:ya
of an ana:ptha as authentic? Hence, this reasoning school of thought concur with, we can say that,
alone is not sufficient to conclude that ve:da:s are instead of relying on the words of an a:ptha to
independent source of authenticity. prove a validity, the authenticity of a source of
knowledge can be determined by simply finding
2. Since the words spoken by an ana:ptha are
nothing unauthentic in the existing prama:nam or
not anyway accepted as authentic, let us consider
finding no reason to prove it unauthentic.
the meaningful words spoken by an a:ptha. An
a:ptha can only present his views on that which In view of the above, great scholars who are
he clearly perceives with his senses. He cannot proficient in the science of prama:nam, concluded
speak about subject matters which are beyond his that ve:da:s are devoid of any ‘aprama:nya
sense perception and hence we cannot accept his ka:ranam’ . They primarily analyzed 4 reasons
interpretations on such subjects as authentic, for for proving that ve:das are svathaha prama:nam.
it is not in the purview of his senses. Hence, the They are abo:dhakathvam, anuva:dakathvam,
meaningful sounds rendered by an a:ptha are also ba:dhitha:rtthakathvam, purushaprani:thathvam.
not sufficient to conclude that ve:das are svathaha
After analyzing these, the scholars concluded that
prama:nam.
ve:das do not have any reasons to turn unauthentic.
3. The other reason an a:ptha’s words are They proclaimed that the ve:das were svathaha
insufficient for ve:das’ svathaha prama:nam is that prama:nam and there was no need to depend on
we need to have some other authentic source to say any other sources for proving its validity. Ve:das
that the words of an a:ptha are valid. And this other also stand as the only one authentic source of
source may require yet another source to prove knowledge which can become the standard source
the former’s validity. And so on… This leads to a for all other prama:nams.
situation called anavasththa!
Curious to know what these four reasons are and
If a prama:nam lacks the strength to determine how they analyzed them in favor of the ve:das? Let
the ‘prame:yam’ on its own, then it is always not us delve into their minds in the coming editions.
possible to depend on another prama:nam to Stay tuned to this section.
validate it. Hence any prama:nam lasts as long
Jan 2012• Bhakthinivedana 23
