Epistemology - ways of knowing Advaita Vedanta

1 epistemology - ways of knowing

1.1 pratyakṣa (perception)
1.2 anumāṇa (inference)
1.3 upamāṇa (comparison, analogy)
1.4 arthāpatti (postulation)
1.5 anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof)
1.6 Śabda (relying on testimony)

epistemology - ways of knowing

the ancient , medieval texts of advaita vedanta , other schools of hindu philosophy discuss pramana (epistemology). theory of pramana discusses questions how correct knowledge can acquired; how 1 knows, how 1 doesn t; , extent knowledge pertinent or can acquired. advaita vedānta, accepts following 6 kinds of pramāṇas:

pratyakṣa (perception)

pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्षाय), perception, of 2 types: external - arising interaction of 5 senses , worldly objects, , internal - perception of inner sense, mind. advaita postulates 4 pre-requisites correct perception: 1) indriyarthasannikarsa (direct experience 1 s sensory organ(s) object, whatever being studied), 2) avyapadesya (non-verbal; correct perception not through hearsay, according ancient indian scholars, 1 s sensory organ relies on accepting or rejecting else s perception), 3) avyabhicara (does not wander; correct perception not change, nor result of deception because 1 s sensory organ or means of observation drifting, defective, suspect) , 4) vyavasayatmaka (definite; correct perception excludes judgments of doubt, either because of 1 s failure observe details, or because 1 mixing inference observation , observing 1 wants observe, or not observing 1 not want observe). internal perception concepts included pratibha (intuition), samanyalaksanapratyaksa (a form of induction perceived specifics universal), , jnanalaksanapratyaksa (a form of perception of prior processes , previous states of topic of study observing current state).

anumāṇa (inference)

anumāṇa (अनुमान), inference, defined applying reason reach new conclusion truth 1 or more observations , previous understanding of truths. observing smoke , inferring fire example of anumana. epistemological method gaining knowledge consists of 3 parts: 1) pratijna (hypothesis), 2) hetu (a reason), , 3) drshtanta (examples). hypothesis must further broken down 2 parts: 1) sadhya (that idea needs proven or disproven) , 2) paksha (the object on sadhya predicated). inference conditionally true if sapaksha (positive examples evidence) present, , if vipaksha (negative examples counter-evidence) absent. rigor, indian philosophies further demand vyapti - requirement hetu (reason) must , separately account inference in cases, in both sapaksha , vipaksha. conditionally proven hypothesis called nigamana (conclusion).

upamāṇa (comparison, analogy)

upamāṇa (उपमान), comparison, analogy. hindu schools consider proper means of knowledge. upamana, states lochtefeld, may explained example of traveler has never visited lands or islands endemic population of wildlife. or told, has been there, in lands see animal sort of looks cow, grazes cow different cow in such , such way. such use of analogy , comparison is, state indian epistemologists, valid means of conditional knowledge, helps traveller identify new animal later. subject of comparison formally called upameyam, object of comparison called upamanam, while attribute(s) identified samanya.

arthāpatti (postulation)

arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति), postulation, derivation circumstances. in contemporary logic, pramana similar circumstantial implication. example, if person left in boat on river earlier, , time past expected time of arrival, circumstances support truth postulate person has arrived. many indian scholars considered pramana invalid or @ best weak, because boat may have gotten delayed or diverted. however, in cases such deriving time of future sunrise or sunset, method asserted proponents reliable.

anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof)

anupalabdi (अनुपलब्धि), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof. anupalabdhi pramana suggests knowing negative, such there no jug in room form of valid knowledge. if can observed or inferred or proven non-existent or impossible, 1 knows more 1 did without such means. in advaita school of hindu philosophy, valid conclusion either sadrupa (positive) or asadrupa (negative) relation - both correct , valuable. other pramana, indian scholars refined anupalabdi 4 types: non-perception of cause, non-perception of effect, non-perception of object, , non-perception of contradiction. 2 schools of hinduism accepted , developed concept non-perception pramana. advaita considers method valid , useful when other 5 pramanas fail in 1 s pursuit of knowledge , truth. variation of anupaladbi, called abhava (अभाव) has been posited epistemic method. means non-existence. scholars consider anupalabdi same abhava, while others consider anupalabdi , abhava different. abhava-pramana has been discussed in advaita in context of padartha (पदार्थ, referent of term). padartha defined simultaneously astitva (existent), jneyatva (knowable) , abhidheyatva (nameable). abhava further refined in 4 types, schools of hinduism accepted useful method of epistemology: dhvamsa (termination of existed), atyanta-abhava (impossibility, absolute non-existence, contradiction), anyonya-abhava (mutual negation, reciprocal absence) , pragavasa (prior, antecedent non-existence).

Śabda (relying on testimony)

Śabda (शब्द), relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts. hiriyanna explains sabda-pramana concept means reliable expert testimony. schools of hinduism consider epistemically valid suggest human being needs know numerous facts, , limited time , energy available, can learn fraction of facts , truths directly. must rely on others, parent, family, friends, teachers, ancestors , kindred members of society rapidly acquire , share knowledge , thereby enrich each other s lives. means of gaining proper knowledge either spoken or written, through sabda (words). reliability of source important, , legitimate knowledge can come sabda of reliable sources. disagreement between advaita , other schools of hinduism has been on how establish reliability.