Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s13.2

v2.c26.s13.2

While intuitional experience carries with it the highest degree of certitude, it has only a low degree of conceptual clearness. This is why interpretation is necessary, and these interpretations are fallible and so require endless revision. Śruti attempts to say things which are not fully to be said. Men of vidyā, or vision, say what language and logic were not invented to say. Those who have had no direct insight into reality are obliged to take on trust the Vedic views which record the highest experiences of some of the greatest minds who have wrestled with this problem of apprehending reality. For the ordinary man the central truth of the ultimate consciousness is essentially revealed, and not ascertained by any human evidence like that of perception or inference. These latter give us strong suggestions of the beyond, but not positive proofs. Śaṃkara admits that truth has to be investigated,¹ and himself adopts the principle of non-contradiction in criticising rival systems. His objection to the other philosophical conceptions, notably those of Buddhism, is not so much that they are open to criticism, but that they have not realised the inadequacy of the dialectical method. He holds that the Vedic testimony is superior to the evidence of the senses or the conclusions of reason, though, of course, it is useless in the regions open to perception and inference. A hundred texts cannot make fire cold.¹ It is the aim of the Scriptures to impart such knowledge as cannot be reached through the ordinary means.²