🔊 Play

-The methods, which are used to know the truth of something are called proofs. Except, from our rishis, we do not find any material on this subject, in any other culture. There are four proofs – direct cognition, inferential, word-testimonies and analogies. First, we talk of Direct Proof. When, we have knowledge about an object due to the union of our sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin) and mind with that object, then, such knowledge is said to be Direct or through direct cognition. For any knowledge to be believed to have come through direct cognition and to come in the category of ‘proofs’, it has to pass through three criteria. First condition – that knowledge should not be doubtful. Skeptical knowledge is said to be that, about which our intellect cannot reach a definite decision. Second condition – that knowledge should not be changeable. Example- In the absence of light, we see a person standing at a distance and the same is determined by our intellect, but, when the amount of light increases, we come to know that what we were thinking of as a person in the darkness is actually a pillar. Here, our knowledge has changed. Knowledge that can be changed is not considered to have come through direct cognition. The third and final condition – it should be the subject of that sense. Our senses, like eyes, ears, et cetra have different subjects. If, by hearing with our ears, we get to know about the Taj Mahal, that knowledge cannot be said to have come through Direct Proof, because, Taj Mahal is a subject of the eye, not that of the ear. Similarly, if by hearing the word ‘water’, one has knowledge of the substance which quenches thirst, then, such knowledge will not be considered to be obtained by direct evidence, because, ‘water’ is a subject of taste and not that of the ear. In both these examples, the knowledge that we get about the quality of the person’s voice et cetra can certainly be called having been obtained through direct evidence.

 🔊 Play

-Generally, the knowledge which we have due to the union of our sense organs and mind with some object, is said to be direct, but it is not necessary that such knowledge is true.

Because, the knowledge obtained from ‘proofs’ is always true, in order to bring our direct knowledge to be of the level of proof, we have to pass our knowledge through three tests.

1 That knowledge should not be doubtful.

2 Change in that knowledge should not be possible.

3 That knowledge should not be derived from anyone’s words.

The knowledge derived from one’s words is separately mentioned under ‘word proof’.

Only that knowledge can be called proof, which passes all these three tests.

-The second proof is considered as ‘inference’. If, as we have seen earlier, that two specific actions, always occur simultaneously or in a particular order, then, by knowing one of them, the knowledge of the other action is obtained. For example, seeing the whole street filled with water, we can infer that there has, definitely been heavy rain, here. For such a knowledge, it is not necessary for us to see the rain, directly. For this knowledge to come under ‘inference’ proof, it is necessary that we should have already known through direct cognition that the street gets filled with water, when it rains heavily.                                   

-The third proof is word testimony. In this, we know about the truth of something from the words of others. But, the question arises, which words should be kept in the category of word proof? For a child, his father’s words on any subject are a proof. Similarly, a person takes recourse to the words of a physicist to prove a concept of physics. Now, because, in the Vedaas, all knowledge is available in seed form and the Vedaas were not composed by any person, therefore, only the words of the Vedaas or that of the rishis, whose words are in consonance with that of the vedaas are kept in the category of word proof.                       

To come in the category of word proof, it is not enough for a person to know the object, exactly as it is, from direct and inferential proof. In that person, two other things, should also be there. One, he should want to do welfare of the other and two, he should have desire to speak the truth. Even if, a person knows the truth, he can say harmful and untrue things in the absence of the other two things. The statements of every scientist and other person, in whom the above three things are present, can be considered as a word proof. To come under the word proof, apart from these three things, it is not necessary to know and believe a book named Veda.