[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
The Philosophy of Religion by Swami Krishnananda 42
41
CHAPTER VII
THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
INTRODUCTORY
The analysis in the previous chapter would show that the I , the Self, essentially is
Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. This, apparently, brings forth the same old problem of
the relationship between consciousness and matter, though in a different form. But such
a problem arises because of the forgetfulness of the analysis already made, which
showed that man is a representative selfhood of the Universal Being. Whatever is in the
universe is in man also, and vice versa. Then, if the Self is Existence-Consciousness-
Bliss, even so must be the universe. But, the problem may be tackled from the relational
standpoint, also, which is how the human predicament envisages the values of life.
The materialist starts the analysis with the world. He takes the stance that matter exists.
The Samkhya also asserts the same, though it calls matter by the name Prakriti. The
existence of matter, or Prakriti, was an assumption which was not questioned at all, but
was taken for granted. Again consciousness also cannot be denied. Thus, here, is the
relational problem, which none could explain satisfactorily.
When the analysis starts from the self, the situation becomes slightly different. Here, no
assumptions are made. It is already established that the self, which is the subject that is
enquiring, being consciousness, is also existence, and, thus, undeniable. The existence of
matter, the universe, is being questioned: How do I know that matter exists? This
thorough logicality to the core is what leads to the final solution. How do I know that
anything other than myself exists at all? This is nothing but asking how man knows the
world, or, how knowledge is obtained. This is to knock at the doors of the Theory of
Knowledge.
The knowledge of an object is said to involve three ingredients, known in Sanskrit as
Pramatr, Pramana and Prameya. The word Pramatr means the perceiver, the cogniser,
or the knower. Pramana is the process of knowing. Prameya is the end-result of the
knowledge process - i.e., the object that is known. There is something or someone that
knows; something that is known; and, also, there is a knowing process, acting as a
connecting link between the knower and the known. This simple phenomenon of
knowledge involving the knower, the object known, and the knowing process has roused
great systems of philosophy of which the prominent phases are known as idealism and
realism. These words are coined by Western thinkers, and they are not wholly applicable
to the way of thinking in India, though the idealists and the realists, in a different sense,
have been pre-eminent thinkers in the philosophical circles of India, also. We shall first
consider the Western schools of thought and then proceed to the Indian system.
RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM: THE TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
Concerning the theory of knowledge, there are two prominent schools which go by the
names of rationalism and empiricism: one holding the opinion that knowledge arises
from within by the very nature of the reason of the individual; the other holding the
opposite view that knowledge arises by the contact of the senses with objects, i.e.,
objects cause the knowledge. These two camps have held their stand for centuries and it
The Philosophy of Religion by Swami Krishnananda
The Philosophy of Religion by Swami Krishnananda 42
43
was difficult to reconcile the two views - viz., does knowledge arise from within man
himself spontaneously, or is it an effect produced by an occurrence in the phenomenal
world? This subject has been a headache to philosophers both in the West and in the
East, which difficulty seems to have arisen due to the concept of reality which each one
stuck to, and the consequence of having based all analyses and studies on this conclusive
notion about the nature of the ultimate reality itself.
As seen earlier, the doctrine of mechanistic materialism, which thinks that all reality is
matter, cannot even dream that knowledge can arise spontaneously from the reason of
man or the mind of the individual. Knowledge is an epiphenomenon, a secondary effect
that is produced by a primary reality which is quite different from knowledge.
Knowledge is not the nature of reality, because it is material in its essence. We have
already observed earlier that there is some defect basically in this doctrine, because if
matter, which is regarded as ultimately real, is to be all-in-all, and there is to be nothing
outside it, there would not be an object of awareness for anyone. There would be nobody
to know that matter exists, if it were the only reality. There is some subtle problem
creeping into the root of the doctrine of utter materialism, which cannot accept the
presence of anything outside matter. On the same grounds, therefore, the empiric
doctrine that knowledge arises by the contact of the senses with objects outside, which
has some association with materialism, though not wholly, cannot be regarded as
entirely true, though there is some amount of truth in it, which we shall consider a little
further on.
The human individual is a complex structure. It cannot be studied without one s getting
into deep waters. The study of human nature or human individuality is like walking
blindfolded on a beaten track. It is a zigzag path and a winding process of thinking
because of the involvement of the structure of the personality of man in factors which
elude the grasp of his own understanding. It cannot be said that any school of thought is
wholly right or wholly wrong, because each one presents a facet or a feature, which is
revealed when one s understanding is focussed on that particular aspect only. Man is
never accustomed to think in a total manner. Such a thing is almost impossible for
people. All thoughts are partial in most cases. We always take into consideration certain
features of reality, certain aspects of an event; and an entire circumstance of any
occurrence or event is beyond the reach of human understanding, because man himself
is not a totality, he is a partiality. He is an abstraction from the total whole. Human
individuality is a fragment as well as a shadow of an archetypal wholeness.
Here, one receives a lot of light from Eastern thinking. The philosophers of the Vedanta
and the mystics of the Upanishads tell us that man is not made in such a way as to be
able to wholly understand what reality is, the reason being that he is an abstraction, a
partial extract from the totality which is reality.
Now, this being the case, the knowledge situation, which is being discussed under the
subject of the theory of knowledge, becomes somewhat complicated to understand. It is
not so easy as it appears. What is it that man knows, and who is he, first of all, that is the
subject of the knowledge of things? By now we have a little idea of what individuality is.
Man can be said to be anything, and any definition may apply to him. Hence, a
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]