What can be accepted as proof?
Note: I had written this piece two years ago but forgotten to publish it.
This is an interesting question in philosophy as many of the concepts discussed can be explained or failed to be explained by using the theory of self realization or self-experience. So when a person says that he/she believes in something because they have self-realized it or self-experienced it, it becomes difficult to question. Now this is a very strong argument made in many of theories in Indian philosophy, atleast amongst whomever I had discussed. Hence I tried to look at various Indian ancient texts talking about.
So I chanced upon ‘Patanjali’s YogaSutras’, a commentary by Swami Vivekananda(PDF available here).
So in the Chapter 1, Samadhi Pada, Shlokha 7, it is
‘pratyakshanumanagamah pramanani‘
Which means,
‘Direct perception, inference, evidence, are proofs.’
The Sanskrit shlokha seems pretty straight forward. However in the commentary, Swami Vivekananda adds another kind of proof which is not mentioned in shlokha, ‘aptakavyam‘ which is strange. His commentary goes on to explain it as follows:
‘When two of our perceptions do not contradict each other we call it proof. I hear something, and, if it contradicts something already perceived, I begin to fight it out, and do not believe it. There are also three kinds of proof. Direct perception, Pratyaksham, whatever we see and feel, is proof, if there has been nothing to delude the senses. I see the world; that is sufficient proof that it exists. Secondly, Anumana, inference; you see a sign, and from the sign you come to the thing signified. Thirdly, Aptavakyam, the direct perception of the Yogi, of those who have seen the truth. We are all of us struggling towards knowledge, but you and I have to struggle hard, and come to knowledge through a long tedious process of reasoning, but the Yogi, the pure one, has gone beyond all this. Before his mind, the past, the present, and the future, are alike one book for him to read; he does not require to go through all this tedious process, and his words are proofs, because he sees knowledge in himself; he is the Omniscient One. These, for instance, are the authors of the Sacred Scriptures; therefore the Scriptures are proof, and, if any such persons are living now, their words will be proof. Other philosophers go into long discussions about this Apta, and they say, what is the proof that this is truth? The proof is because they see it; because whatever I see is proof, and whatever you see is proof, if it does not contradict any past knowledge. There is knowledge beyond the senses, and whenever it does not contradict reason and past human experience, that knowledge is proof. Any madman may come into this room and say that he sees angels around him, that would not be proof. In the first place it must be true knowledge, and, secondly, it must not contradict knowledge
of the past, and thirdly, it must depend upon the character of the man. I hear it said that the character of the man is not of so much importance as what he may say; we must first hear what he says. This may be true in other things; a man may be wicked, and yet make an astronomical discovery, but in religion it is different, because no impure man will ever have the power to reach the truths of religion. Therefore, we have first of all to see that the man who declares himself to be an Apta is a perfectly unselfish and holy person; secondly that he has reached beyond the senses, and thirdly that what he says does not contradict the past knowledge of humanity. Any new discovery of truth does not contradict the past truth, but fits into it. And, fourthly, that truth must have a possibility of
verification. If a man says “I have seen a vision,” and tells me that I have no right to see it, I believe him not. Everyone must have the power to see it for himself. No one who sells his knowledge is an Apta. All these conditions must be fulfilled; you must first see that the man is pure, and that he has no selfish motive; that he has no thirst for gain or fame.
Secondly, he must show that he is super-conscious. Thirdly, he must have given us something that we cannot get from our senses, and which is for benefit of the world. And we must see
that it does not contradict other truths; if it contradicts other scientific truths reject it at once. Fourthly, the man should never be singular; he should only represent what all men can attain. The three sorts of proof, are, then, direct sense perception, inference, and the words of an Apta. I cannot translate this word into English. It is not the word inspired, because that comes from outside, while this comes from himself. The literal meaning is “attained.”
Now, I tried to look at the word ‘Aptakavyam’, where it has been used. I came across ‘Vedantha Paribhasha of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra’ Translated and annotated by Swami Madhavananda(PDF can be found here). It seems to mention lot of different theories of Proofs across the Indian philosophy. The author of ‘Vedantha Paribhasha’ Dharmaraja Advarindra seems to be from Tamil Nadu and seems to have lived in 17th century as mentioned in Introduction by Swami Madhavananda. So this seems to be a good book to understand various aspects of Proofs in Indian philosophy as it seems the author already studied it in detail and have summarized it with appropriate citations to previous work. So from the previous book of ‘Yoga Sutras’ I have jumped into understanding this book now. So this is where my quest stands as of now.
