4.2. Laukika Pramāṇas Fail to Realize Eternal Entities

Svāminārāyaṇa believes that laukika (worldly) pramāṇas fail to realize eternal entities like Brahman and Parabrahman.

He proclaims:

“Māyic substances can be comprehended by māyic means, and if one has comprehended Parabrahman through the same māyic antahakaranas and indriyas then it implies that Parabrahman must also be māyic.” (Vac. Gaḍh. 1/51, p.124).

The Bhāṣyakāra elaborately substantiates this fact while commenting on the Mantra—

‘na tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāg gacchati no mana...’ (Katha-upaniṣad 1/3)

“There, the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown. So, were we taught by our great ancestors.”

Here, the Bhāṣyakāra comments:

“cakṣurvāṅmana iti trayaṃ sakalabāhyāntaḥkaraṇānāmupalakṣaṇamataḥ sarveṣāmapi māyikānāmantarbāhyendriyāṇāṃ paramātmasvarūpagrahaṇe'sāmarthyamiti pratipāditam | na ca cakṣurādinaikenaiva sarvendriyopa-lakṣaṇatvasambhavātkathaṃ vāgādīnāṃ pṛthagupanyāsa iti vācyaṃ, tātparyaviśeṣeṇa tadupādānām | tathā cā'tra cakṣuriti padaṃ pratyakṣajñānakaraṇātmakasya pratyakṣapramāṇasyopalakṣaṇam | ato'laukikasyā'pārasya divyasya vā'kṣarādhipaterdivyasvarūpaguṇādīnāṃ sākalyenagrahaṇe laukikasya simitadarśino māyikasya ghrāṇarasanacakṣustvakchrotrātmakasya pratyakṣapramāṇabhūtasya jñānendriyavargasya naiva prasarāvakāśa iti lakṣitam | tathā hi yathā laukikānāṃ gṛhadārāputravṛkṣaparvatanadyādīnāṃ dravyāṇāṃ śabdasparśarūparasagandhādiguṇānāṃ vā cakṣurāditattadindriyasannikarṣāt pratyakṣaṃ jñānaṃ na tathā paramātmaparasvarūpasya, tasya taddivyaguṇaughasya cā'tyalaukikatvād atyapāratvād atīndriyatvācceti pūrvamevoktam |”

“Here, eye, speech, and mind represent all the internal and external senses. The Upaniṣad assert their incapability to conceive the form of Parabrahman. One should not contend that indication of all senses could have been possible by just mentioning the eye sense since it has a particular purport. The eye represents perception, the source of direct knowledge. As a result, it becomes clear that māyic and limited eye sense is not able to gain the knowledge of Parabrahman thoroughly. The knowledge of divine and limitless Parabrahman is not possible as one procures the knowledge of house, wife, son, tree, mountain, river, etc. and five sense pleasures by just connection one’s eyes with the objects.”

Further, the Bhāṣyakāra is analyzing the verbal testimony.

“vāgiti padaṃ laukikaśabdapramāṇamupalakṣayati | śabdo'pi sampūrṇatayā tadvarṇayituṃ naiva samarthaḥ | tathā hi yathā laukikavastuvivaraṇaṃ lokavyavahāro vā śabdairniṣpādyate na tathā paraṃ paramātmasvarūpaṃ tadguṇādikaṃ vā laukikaśabdairvivektuṃ śakyaṃ, pūrvoktādeva hetoḥ | aparaṃ ca laukikasya śabdasya pratyakṣopajīvyatvād yadā tadupajīvakasya pratyakṣasyaiva yathāvatsākalyena paramātmopalabdhāvagatistadā syādeva tatrā'kiñcitkaraṃ tadupajīvyamiti bhāvaḥ |”

“Here, speech term is reflecting the worldly verbal testimony because even words alone cannot explain the form of Parabrahman thoroughly. As the worldly objects and behavior can be explained and comprehended by these words, not Parabrahman because it is a divine entity. Moreover, worldly words are dependent on perception; even perception itself is unable to grasp the form of Parabrahman thoroughly, then how can the depended words.”

The Bhāṣyakāra further explains inference:

“manaḥpadaṃ mananaśiraskamanumānamupalakṣayati | parabrahmakṛtsnavijñaptau kevalasyā'numānasyāpi nāsti pravartanāvakāśastasyāpi pratyakṣopajīvyatvāditi | evaṃ tatsvarūpaguṇāderapārapāratvenā'paricchinnatvācca sarvalaukikapramāṇā'navagamyaṃ kṛtsnaṃ paramātmaparasvarūpādikamiti tātparyam |” (Katha-upaniṣad 1/3, p. 36)

“In this context, the mind indicates inference. Since inference is based on a mental process after viewing an object via perception, due to inference’s dependency on worldly perception, it cannot cover the knowledge of Parabrahman. In this manner, due to Parabrahman’s inconceivable divine form, unfathomable qualities etc., these all worldly or laukika sources of knowledge fall short of attaining Parabrahman’s knowledge thoroughly.”

Here, the Bhāṣyakāra explicitly mentions three major pramāṇa-perception, inference and textual words and acknowledges that to attain the supreme spiritual knowledge of Brahman and Parabrahman, worldly pramāṇa or the means of knowledge fail, since worldly pramāṇas are potent only to obtain worldly knowledge.

Let us fathom this principle in detail. Firstly, the above-mentioned Śruti speaks of Parabrahman, as beyond the comprehension of mind, speech, and visual perception. Parabrahman is beyond māyā and its three guṇas. The jñānendriya and karmendriya (sensory-motor organs) have evolved from rajoguṇa and four divisions of antaḥkaraṇa (inner-organ) have evolved from sattva-guṇa. Thus, the organs external and internal are māyic (material), i.e., the products of prakṛti-māyā (matter). On the other hand, Parabrahman is beyond māyā, i.e., devoid of the trace of materiality. Therefore, how can non-māyic (divine) Parabrahman be ever comprehended through senses and mind that are māyic (material)? And what is grasped by māyic senses & mind has to be māyic! So, if the incarnate form of Parabrahman is ever known with māyic senses & mind, then Parabrahman whom they apprehend will be deemed to be māyic.

Secondly, everything comprehended through sensory-motor organs and mind (indriya-antaḥkaraṇa) fall in the category of perceptual knowledge or knowledge by inference (reason). Thus, as finite spirits are bound by the chains of māyā, we cannot know Parabrahman through perception and inference by just our common phraseology. Thirdly, knowledge by śabda (verbal testimony), though dependable, is also indirect mediate knowledge of Parabrahman for us, as it leaves us dependent on our imagination and inference (conjectures) based on it. Our conceptual framework, though based on words or scriptures, is still māyic, limited, mediate, and indirect. Fourthly, notwithstanding proficiency in scriptural words and well-formed conception of Parabrahman based on them, the great had failed to recognize and comprehend Parabrahman as Parabrahman when He actually was around them as the manifest incarnate Parabrahman in the form of Rāma or Kṛṣṇā. This again is marked from the records in the scriptures. Fifthly, besides Parabrahman is present around manifest incarnate-Parabrahman (avatāra), if one does not have the firm and accurate knowledge (conviction) of Parabrahman as Parabrahman (and not as a human or one like us), then even if they see Him, hear Him, touche Him, communicate and interact with Him -the knowledge so attained cannot be termed as the highest veritable knowledge. It would be mere observed knowledge on par with perceptual and/or rational knowledge psycho-physical instruments of knowing.

Thus, in lack of the knowledge of Parabrahman and acknowledgment of Him as the transcendental Parabrahman in the manifest form (avatāra), it may be termed as 'quasi-knowledge' or 'knowledge by courtesy' which may be termed as rajoguṇa. But when one transcends the psycho-physical limitations of indriya-antaḥkaraṇa, reaches beyond the scope of three guṇas, and comprehends Parabrahman through the vision of the atman in its pristine purity by the grace of Parabrahman Avatāra, he then is said to have attained the veritable knowledge of Parabrahman. Such a knowledge-experience is direct, immediate, and apodictic (aparokṣa-jñāna). It is the highest knowledge (ātyaṃtika-jñāna) that is a votary of ultimate emancipation. The Svāminārāyaṇa School discloses that our māyic sense organs are not capable enough to attain knowledge of the highest reality like Brahman and Parabrahman. Then what is the paramount source in order to attain the true knowledge of these eternal entities?