CHAPTER III
Instruments of Knowledge: Religious Point of View
The universality and necessity of the Religious Ideal (Ever-existent, Ever-conscious Bliss-God) and the practical methods to reach it have been discussed in the previous chapters. Now we wish to discuss the grounds of validity of the methods. The methods are essentially practical, and if they are followed the ideal must be reached, whether we deal with the theories or not. Their ground of validity is the practical result itself, which is palpable and real. It is not, be it understood, really necessary to show the theoretical’ grounds of validity. But simply to satisfy others we treat a priori of the validity of the theories of knowledge on which the methods are based, that their validity may also be theoretically shown. This will launch us into the epistemological question: How and how far can we know the Ideal, the Truth? To show how we know the ideal we must consider how we know the actual world. We must deal with the process of knowing the world. Then we shall see whether the process of knowing the world is the same as the process of knowing the Ideal, and whether the actual world is separate from the Ideal or whether the latter pervades the former, only the process of knowing the two being different. Before proceeding further let us discuss the “instruments” of knowledge—the way by which knowledge of the world is made possible to us.
There are three instruments or means of knowledge: Perception, Inference, Intuition.
I. Perception. Our senses are, as it were, windows, through which stimuli from the outside come and strike the mind, which passively receives these impressions. Unless the mind operates, no impression can be made on it by the stimuli coming from the outside through the sense-windows. Mind not only furnishes the connections to the stimuli received through the different senses, but stores their influences in the form of impressions. But these impressions remain a confused, disconnected mass until the discriminative faculty (Buddhi) operates on the impressions. A relevant connection is then established and the details of the outer world are recognized as such. They are projected, so to speak, and known in the forms of time and space, having distinct associations—quantity, quality, measure, and meaning. A house is then known as a house, and not as a post. This is the result of the operation of the Intellect (Buddhi). First we see an object, feel it, and then hear the sound of it when struck, our mind receiving these impressions and storing them. Buddhi interprets them and seems to project them in the form of a house with its various parts—size, shape, color, form, fashion, and its relation to others in the present, past, or future—in time and space. This is how knowledge of the world arises. An insane person has impressions stored in his mind, but they are in a chaotic state—not sorted and made up into distinct, well-ordered groups by Buddhi (Intellect).
Now comes the question: Can Reality (the Ideal, Ever-conscious, Ever-existent, Bliss-God) be known by perception of this sort? Is the process of knowing this world, viz., by perception, valid in the matter of knowing the Highest truth?
Now we know Buddhi can work only upon the materials supplied by the senses. It is certain that the senses give us only the stimuli of qualities and variety. Not only do the senses give variety, but Buddhi itself deals with variety and remains in the region of variety. Though it can think of “unity in diversity,” it cannot be one with it. This is its drawback. Perception can not really give the true nature of Substance—One, Universal—underlying diverse manifestations. This is the verdict of Reason itself. When Buddhi (in the broad sense, thought) turns back upon itself to judge how far, by interpreting the sense-impressions, it is capable of knowing Reality, it finds itself hopelessly shut up within the domain of the sense-world. There is no loop-hole through which it can peep into the super-sensuous world.
Some may say that because we drive a wedge between the sensuous and the super-sensuous worlds, Reason can not bring itself to believe that it can have any knowledge of the super-sensuous. They say that if we think of the super-sensuous as manifesting in and through the sensuous, then in knowing the sensuous—with its connection (teleology, or adaptation) and all the details and varieties by the processes of the intellect—we shall be knowing the super-sensuous manifested as “unity in diversity.’’ But it may be questioned, what is the nature of that knowing? Is it merely an idea in our brain, or is it seeing the truth (unity in diversity) face to face, first-hand and direct? Does that form of knowing carry the same conviction which being one with it would carry? Surely not, for that knowing is very partial, defective. It is merely looking through a colored glass. The super-sensuous world lies beyond. These are the a priori arguments against perception as an instrument for knowing Reality, or God.
From calm experience, also, we find that we can not attain that Blissful state; which is Reality and the Ideal itself, as shown in the previous chapters, until we rise to a considerable extent from the restless, perceptual stage. The more we leave behind the disturbing perceptions and interior thoughts, the greater is the possibility of the dawning of that super-mental state of Bliss, or Bliss-God. Ordinary perception and Bliss seem to be mutually exclusive in common experience. However, none of our methods is based on pure perception, hence the inability of the latter to know Reality does not affect the former.
II. Inference. This is another way of deriving knowledge of the world. But inference itself is based on experience,—on perception,—be it deductive or inductive. In our experience we find fire wherever there is smoke; hence if we see smoke on any occasion, we infer there is fire. This is deductive inference. But it is possible only because of our previous experience (perception) of smoke as being associated with fire. In inductive inference, also, there is the same dependence on perception. We observe that a certain kind of bacillus is the cause of cholera. We find out the causal connection between that kind of bacillus and cholera and at once inductively infer that wherever we find this bacillus, cholera will be present. While there is a leap here from the known cases of cholera to the unknown cases, still by inference we get no new fact, though the cases may be new. The very possibility of the establishment of causal connection between bacilli and cholera depended upon observation (perception) of certain cases. So inference ultimately depends upon perception. In inferred cases we do not get any new truth—nothing really new that was not found in observed cases. In observed cases bacilli are followed by cholera, and in the inferred cases, too, bacilli are followed by cholera—no new truth, though the cases are fresh and new.
So in all forms of thought, reasoning, inference, or imagination we are not face to face with Reality. Reason or thought may arrange and systematize facts of experience. It can endeavor to see things as a whole. It may try to penetrate into the mystery of the world. But its effort is hampered by the materials on which it works—facts of experience, sense impressions. They are bald, hard facts, disconnected, limited by our powers of perception. The materials disturb rather than help the thought process, which also has a restless continuity.
The first method, as we pointed out, is the intellectual method. It busies itself with the thought process in order to know Reality—state of Bliss and calm realization. But it fails. Bodily perceptions disturb, and the thought process also, due to its working on varied, restless sense-impressions, forbids our remaining for long in a concentrated state, that we may know and feel that calm condition of Bliss and have the consciousness of unity in diversity. One merit of the Intellectual method is that when we are absorbed in the thought-world, to a certain extent we transcend bodily sensations. But this is always temporary.
In the other two methods—Devotional and Meditation—the thought process is less. Still, it is present. In the devotional method, i.e., in ritual worship or otherwise, in prayer, congregational or individual, much of the thought-process is engaged in the arrangement of favorable conditions. Still there is the attempt to concentrate on some subject of worship or prayer. So far as the diversity in thought processes is checked or prevented, the devotional method is successful. Still the defect is this: due to our bad habit, confirmed in the course of ages, our concentration is not deep, leaving the possibility of setting the diversity of thought-processes at work on the slightest disturbance.
In the Meditation method outward formalities, conventions, rites, etc., being dispensed with, thus barring the possibility of the thought-processes being set into motion as easily as in the Devotional method, concentration is fixed on one object of thought. And there is a gradual tendency to leave the sphere of thought to step into that of Intuition, which we shall next consider.
III. Intuition. So far we have been considering the instruments and processes of knowing this sensuous world. Intuition, with which we now deal, is the process by which we know the super-sensuous world—the world that is beyond senses and thoughts. It is true that the super-sensuous expresses itself in and through the sensuous, and to know the latter in completeness is to know the former, but the process of knowing the two must be different. To know the latter, perception and thought will be fairly sufficient, but to know the super-sensuous, Intuition is required. It is no argument to say that because the super-sensuous expresses itself through the sensuous, the process of knowing the latter (Perception and Thought) will also hold good in the case of the former. For, are we able to know the sensuous world even, in all its fullness, by these processes? Assuredly not. There is an infinite number of facts, things, laws, connections in nature, and even in our own organism, which are still and probably ever will be a sealed book to mankind. Far less, then, shall we be able to know what is really beyond sense-perception and thought-perception by mere sense and thought.
Intuition comes from within; thought from without. The former gives a face-to-face view of Reality; the latter gives an indirect view of it. Intuition, by a strange sympathy, sees it in its totality, while thought chops it up into parts. Every man has the power of intuition, as he has the power of thought. As thought can be cultivated, so Intuition can be developed. In Intuition we are in tune with Reality—with the world of Bliss, with the “unity in diversity” with the inner laws governing the spiritual world, with God.
How do we know that we exist? Through sense-perception? Do the senses first tell us that we exist—whence the consciousness of existence comes? That can never be. For the consciousness of existence is pre-supposed in the attempt of the senses to let us know of our existence. Sense cannot consciously sense anything without our first knowing that we exist in the very act of sensing. Does inference, the thought-process, tell us that we exist? Assuredly not. For the materials of thought must be sense-impressions, which, as we have just found, cannot tell us of our existence, as that feeling is already pre-supposed in them. Nor can the process of thought give us the consciousness of existence, for the latter is already implied in the former. When, by comparing ourselves with the outer world, we endeavor to think or infer that we exist therein, the consciousness of existence is already present in the very act of thinking and inferring. Then, if sense or thought fails, how do we know that we exist? It is only by Intuition that we can know this. This knowing is one form of Intuition. It is beyond sense and thought—they are made possible by it.
It is very difficult to define Intuition, for it is too near to every one of us. Every one of us feels it. Do we not know what the consciousness of existence is? Every one knows it. It is too familiar to admit of definition. Ask one how he knows he exists. He will remain dumb. He knows it, but he cannot define it. He may try to explain, but his explanation does not reveal what he inwardly feels. Intuition of every form has this peculiar character.
The fourth method, explained in the last chapter, bases itself on Intuition. The practice of it leads us inward. The more earnest we are about it, the wider and surer will be our vision of Reality—God. It is through Intuition that humanity reaches Divinity, that the sensuous is brought into connection with the super-sensuous, and that the latter is felt to express itself in and through the sensuous. The influence of senses vanishes, intruding thoughts disappear, Bliss-God is realized, the consciousness of “all in One and One in all” dawns upon us. This Intuition is what all great savants and prophets of the world had and still have.
The third method (Meditation-Method), as explained in the last chapter, when it is earnestly practised, carries us also into the region of Intuition. But it is a bit round-about, and ordinarily takes a longer time to produce in us the successive states of the Intuitional or Realization process.
Thus it is by Intuition that God can be realized in all His aspects. We have no sense that can reveal knowledge of Him. The senses give knowledge of only His manifestations. No thought or inference can enable us to know Him as He truly is. For thought cannot go beyond what the senses give. It can only arrange and interpret the impressions of the senses. When the senses are unable, thought, as depending upon them, is also unable to bring us to God. So it is to Intuition that we shall have to turn for the knowledge of God in His Blissful and other aspects.
Religion is truly an act of Intuition; without it the former degrades into the observance of lifeless conventions and rites. It is from the point of view of Intuition that every fact of the world finds meaning in its totality. The criterion of development in the Spiritual world is also Intuition. Men of the world will see how far you are punctual, regular, and devoted in the matter of observing the codes and canons of worldly-wise morality and Religion, but the seer of truth will mark how far you have progressed in the path of realization—Intuition.
But there are many bars to this Religious point of view—to the realization of truth. These are some of them: Disease, Mental Incapacity, Doubt, Indolence, Worldly-mindedness, False Notion, Missing the Point and Instability.
These are either inherent or engendered and aggravated through association with others. Besides the above there may be many other inherent tendencies (Samskaras) which turn out to be the causes of these. We seem to have no control over our Samskaras, but our strong-minded effort (Purushakara) can work wonders. It can change them, nay, it can destroy them. When they are changed for the better they help rather than retard us. It is through effort, as facilitated by association with the good, that new tendencies (Samskaras) can be formed and the bad ones changed.
Until we associate with those who have seen, felt, and realized Religion in their lives we can not fully know what it is, and in what its universality and necessity lie.
Everybody in the world is a seeker after truth. The spirit of inquiry is in all. But it is dulled and the willingness to know the truth is dampened, because distractions are many, tendencies are or grow to be perverse, and monsters of the world are also numerous.
But still we are men, not animals. It is never too late to mend or seek. Search and you will find, “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”
OM