[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Science, technology and education](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science) › [Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947) › c16 # Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c16: Chapter IX: Philosophical Sūtra Literature Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c16 - **Language:** English ### Chapter IX: Philosophical Sūtra Literature ### [c16.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.2) \*\*The Sūtras of Six Systems of Philosophy: their Origins.\*\* The account of Education in the Sūtra period will not be complete without a consideration of what may be gathered about it from a special type and class of Sūtras or aphorisms presenting what are known as the six systems of philosophy. In the history of Hindu thought, and also from the educational point of view, these philosophical Sūtras are possessed of a singular significance and value. ### [c16.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.3) It is, however, to be noted that these do not represent the very first fruits of Indian philosophical speculation which had been in progress from time immemorial. This is seen in the large stock of ideas and technical terms upon which, as the common inheritance from a bygone age, the different Schools of Philosophy have freely drawn in constructing their own systems. The philosophical Sūtras systematize and codify the speculation which is exhibited in an exuberant growth in the \*Brāhmaṇas\* and older Upanishads, while that growth itself has sprung out of germs contained in a still earlier literature. Indian Philosophy has had, indeed, a very old and continuous history. The early streaks, the dawn of philosophy, are to be discovered in the Vedic Mantras, while the Upanishads show the meridian. The Upanishads contain many technical terms like Brahman, Ātman, Dharma, Vrata, Yoga, Mīmāṁsā, and the like, which point to the activity of speculation in the previous ages, a vast accumulation of religious and philosophical thought upon which they are able to draw. The Upanishads themselves picture the stirring intellectual activity of which they are the products, an activity which, as we have already seen, passed from the solitary hermitages in forests of isolated Brāhmaṇa ascetics to the busy haunts of men the courts of kings, where it became almost a national concern, a fairly popular pursuit, and not the monopoly of a special caste. The Upanishads indeed, as Max Müller remarked, represent India as a nation of philosophers with innumerable centres of intellectual activity scattered throughout the country, so that we find men of practically all castes and classes—men and women, Brāhmaṇas, Kshatriyas, and even Śūdras—sharing in that activity, as is seen, for instance, in the anecdotes already related of Satyakāma Jābāla of unknown parentage and of Raikva called a Śūdra, both of whom made their mark in philosophical studies. But the starting-point of all this activity is to be found in the Rigveda itself where we already see speculation earnest on solving the riddle of creation by grasping the Unity behind its diversity. A sense of diversity in the world of appearances expresses itself in the creation of a richly varied Vedic pantheon, of gods like Agni, Indra, Varuṇa, and Vāyu, but behind this variety is the underlying conception of the One "extending as a god to the gods from afar and embracing this universe" \[\*Ṛv.\*, ii, 24, 11\], who is called in His different aspects as Hiraṇyagarbha, Prajāpati, Viśvakarmā \[viii, 89, 3\], Bṛihaspati, or Brahmaṇaspati, the god of all gods, culminating in Brahman and Ātman. Lastly, it may be noted that this nascent philosophic thought handed down by oral tradition or embodied in what Max Müller has well called Mnemonic literature produced an extraordinary volume and variety of opinions long before the rise of the philosophical Sūtras or systems. Some evidence of this luxuriant growth of speculation is furnished by one of the Suttas or Sermons supposed to have been preached by the Buddha himself, viz. the \*Brahma-jāla-sutta\* (literally, the net of Brahma in which all philosophical theories are caught up like fishes in a net). In that work, the Buddha mentions as many as sixty-two different schools of philosophy prevailing in the country even in that early age, together with many subdivisions of such schools which he criticizes and condemns in his pursuit of Truth. ### [c16.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.4) \*\*Their Ages.\*\* In the midst of this multiplicity of schools of thought, the six systems of philosophy have stood out and held their own as the most typical and representative of them all. The six systems have come to be distinguished as orthodox systems from the heterodox systems of the Buddhists, Jains, and Chārvākas, because they are all somehow reconcilable with the Vedic system, though they mutually differ in their relations to the same. The six systems are known as (1) the \*Sāṁkhya\* of Kapila, (2) \*Yoga\* of Patañjali, (3) \*Nyāya\* of Gautama, (4) \*Vaiśeshika\* of Kaṇāda, (5) \*Karma\* or \*Pūrva Mīmāṁsā\* of Jaimini, and (6) \*Śārīraka\* or \*Uttara Mīmāṁsā\* or \*Vedānta\* of Bādarāyaṇa. It is to be noted that the philosophers to whom these systems are ascribed were not necessarily their originators. They gave the final form to the Sūtras which themselves refer to older philosophers. Some of the Sūtras, again, refer to the opinions of other Sūtras, which shows that the different philosophical Schools were already in existence before the final redaction of the Sūtras took place. It may further be noted that the extant literary works in which the doctrines of the six systems are embodied are themselves much later in date than their original founders. Thus the \*Sāṁkhya-Kārikā\* of Īśvara Kṛishṇa, giving the best exposition of the \*Sāṁkhya\* system, which was taken by Paramārtha to China in A.D. 546, is generally considered to be not older than the fourth century A.D., the period of Indian literary revival under the Gupta emperors. Similarly, Bādarāyaṇa, Jaimini, Kaṇāda, or Patañjali are to be regarded as mere eponymous founders of their respective philosophical schools, so that whatever might be the date of the actual composition of the Sūtras embodying their systems, they were ascribed to them in accordance with the characteristic and time-honoured Hindu literary practice of fathering the subsequent works of disciples upon their \*gurus\* (though there might be occasionally exceptions to this practice, as in the case of Śaunaka suppressing his own work in favour of his disciples). Thus though, on grounds of rigid chronological standard, the philosophical Sūtras do not come within the Sūtra period proper, they may be justifiably considered as belonging to that period on the basis of what Max Müller aptly calls "the chronology of thought" by which we are able to distinguish between the three phases of Vedic thought represented by Mantras, Brāhmaṇas, and Upanishads, followed by the period of the Sūtra literature, during which even the Buddhists were composing their \*Suttas\* after the literary fashion of the times. ### [c16.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.5) \*\*Systems of Philosophy as Systems of Discipline and Education.\*\* These systems of philosophy insist on their own ideas and systems of discipline by which the pupil has to acquire and fulfil those qualifications and conditions that are required of him by way of \*adhikāra\* or eligibility for his chosen philosophical studies. This course of arduous preparatory discipline is dictated by the typical Hindu point of view which treats philosophy not as a mere subject of study through books but as something to be lived, like religion, as truth to be realized. It was studied as a means for the attainment of the highest truth or \*mukti\*, emancipation which one is to attain by stages of experience, each representing a specific degree of conquest achieved over the body and the material world. A system of philosophy is a system of Release. Thus philosophical study is bound up with a system of discipline. ### [c16.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.6) At the outset it is to be noted that the different Schools of Philosophy rest on a common system of discipline as their foundation. This system is known as \*Varṇāśramadharma\*, the regulations belonging to the different castes and \*āśramas\* of life. These comprise the various \*saṁskāras\* or sacraments prescribed for the different stages of life: \*Upanayana\*, \*Brahmacharya\*, and \*Samāvartana\* (graduation) for its first stage, that of Studentship; the various sacrifices prescribed for the householder’s life (already described); the rules for the gradual detachment from the world in the third stage of the forest-dwelling hermit; followed by the last stage of a wandering mendicant to be devoted wholly to meditation \[for details see my \*Hindu Civilization\*, London, 1936, pp. 128–133\]. ### [c16.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.7) All these sacraments are intended to equip the finite self with a suitable physical body which might sustain the burden of the arduous pursuit of knowledge through life. The \*Chhāndogya Upanishad\* \[viii, 15\] thus describes the life of the ideal householder brought up under this system. “He who returns home from the family of his teacher, after the prescribed study of the Veda carried on in the time remaining over from his work for the teacher, and continues the private study of the Veda in his own household in a pure neighbourhood, trains up pious sons and pupils, subdues all his organs in the soul, and injures no living beings except for a sacred purpose—he, in truth, if he maintains this manner of life all his days, enters into the world of Brahman and does not return.” Even such a householder by way of further purification and progress has to retire from his household, renounce the world, and take to the forest to live the life of an anchorite in meditation, penances, fasts, living on food that is not the outcome of cultivation, and offering a few select sacrifices, then, in the last stage, performing the \*prājāpatya\* sacrifice at which he gives away all his meagre belongings as the sacrificial fee, he wanders about as a mendicant, conquering Desire and attaining Brahman. ### [c16.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.8) On the basis of this common foundation of a disciplined life, each of these systems of philosophy has built up its own methods of education, training, and discipline. This is indicated by the use of the word \*atha\* with which the different philosophical Sūtras begin. The word is used in two senses, the first by way of auspicious beginning and a literary formality and the second to indicate the continuity of the exposition, presupposing a course of preparatory training. This sense is called \*ānantaryārtha\*. This course of preparatory training is different in different schools of philosophy. ### [c16.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.9) \*\*The Discipline of Vedānta.\*\* As the best example of these special systems of discipline, we shall begin with that of the Vedānta which describes it more fully than the other schools of philosophy, while it is also described by no less an authority and philosopher than Śaṅkara in his \*Bhāshya\* on the Vedānta-Sūtras, and also in his \*Upadeśasāhasrī\*. The following account is based on these works. ### [c16.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.10) \*\*Views of Śaṅkara.\*\* Saṅkara begins by defining the subject-matter of Vedānta. It is \*Brahma-jijñāsā\*, "an inquiry into Brahman," and not \*Dharma-jijñāsā\*, "the inquiry into Dharma," which is the subject of \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\*. ### [c16.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.11) \*\*Study of Texts.\*\* The student of Vedānta will thus study those Vedic texts which deal with \*Brahman\*, excluding those which deal with \*Dharma\* and the acts or rituals which are prescribed for purposes of \*Dharma\*. These are not his concern, because they lead only to transitory felicity, and not to eternal bliss which is his objective. Of the Vedic texts, Śaṅkara says that the teacher should first teach those bearing upon the unity of Self and then those containing definitions of Brahman, the Supreme Self. ### [c16.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.12) The study of these select Vedic texts is to be carried out in the prescribed manner under the discipline of \*brahmacharya\*. Mere desire for philosophical study is not enough qualification for it. One must acquire an inner capacity for it, and this can be acquired only by a preliminary study of the Veda as a Brahmachārī. ### [c16.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.13) \*\*Discipline of Āśramas.\*\* The discipline of the other \*āśramas\* of life is also necessary for the purpose. It is necessary for purifying and preparing the mind so that it can grasp Brahman as the only and ultimate Reality. This means that the mind must be able to discriminate between the eternal and the non-eternal (\*nityānitya-viveka\*), to perceive the ephemeral character of the world so as to detach itself from it and ultimately to renounce it in an utter indifference to all enjoyment both here and hereafter (\*ihāmutrabhoga-virāga\*). Then alone will be awakened in the disciple the desire to know the Brahman (\*brahma-jijñāsā\*). One must be fired with the desire for self-realization as the only way to salvation (\*mumukshutva\*). ### [c16.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.14) \*\*Steps of Self-realization.\*\* For this self-realization the following steps are thus prescribed:— (1) \*Śravaṇa\*, "hearing of Vedānta texts as expounded by the teacher"; (2) \*Manana\*, "reflection on their meaning"; (3) \*Nididhyāsana\*, "constant meditation on the Self described in those texts." ### [c16.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.15) This process is to be continued until the immediate apprehension of Reality is achieved. ### [c16.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.16) \*\*Meditation and its Stages.\*\* Constant practice of meditation is required to develop the faculty whereby the Self can be realized, just as constant practice alone can awaken the musical faculty which enables a perception of the niceties of sound and tone. ### [c16.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.17) But it is not easy to meditate on and realize the Self at once. A start may be made by taking Him as the Sun (as his most conspicuous manifestation) and then as \*Ākāśa\*. ### [c16.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.18) These minor Meditations will lead up to the final Meditation on the true Self. ### [c16.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.19) Meditation is always to be practised in a sitting posture or one conducive to its uninterrupted continuance, for which the best time and place should be selected. ### [c16.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.20) This Meditation as a means and process of self-realization presupposes much preparation. First, the body as the vehicle of mind is to be purified by penances. Then, the mind has to be cleansed by Restraints (\*yama\*), Observances (\*niyama\*), and Austerities (\*tapas\*). For the Mind, the most important discipline is its one-pointedness (\*ekāgratā\*) or concentration, the best of virtues, to be achieved by overcoming its usual states defined as (1) \*Kshipta\*, "distraction"; (2) \*Vikshipta\*, "lack of continuous concentration"; (3) \*Mūḍha\*, "sluggishness." \*Ekāgratā\* then leads to the final stage of mental discipline, the stage of \*Nirodha\* or total suspension of mental activity (\*vṛitti\*). The Mind is also to be further purged of its notions of "I" and "Mine" as impurities so as to enable it to receive the knowledge of the Self. ### [c16.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.21) Śaṅkara marks out three stages in this Meditation leading up to a knowledge of the Self, viz. (1) the seeker after Truth is to start by meditating anything he chooses either within his own "heart" (as representing a specific centre of experience in spiritual discipline), or outside his body as apart from its name and form; (2) the second stage is that of uninterrupted meditation upon the One Entity, Absolute, Impartite, of the nature of \*Sat-Chit-Ānanda\*, "the Supreme and only Reality, Self-luminous Consciousness, and Bliss"; (3) in the third stage the \*sādhaka\* remains completely immobile in rapturous self-realization, in which all notion of "\*mine\*" with reference to the body (\*dehātmabodha\*) has melted away and the Higher Self is realized. He henceforth passes all his time in meditation. ### [c16.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.22) It will thus be apparent that such supreme knowledge can come only to one who has conquered desire for son, wealth, and fame, has renounced the world, and is in the fourth \*āśrama\* of life, as a wandering mendicant marked by the virtues known as \*Śama\*, "control of the overt behaviour." \*Dama\*, "regulation of the inner impulses," \*Samādhāna\*, "attention and concentration of mind," \*Śraddhā\*, "faith," \*Titikshā\*, "ability to bear with equanimity the tensions caused by the operation of stimuli coming from antagonistic qualities, and by the appetites of the body," and, lastly, \*Uparati\*, "ability to withdraw one's mind completely from the external stimuli." ### [c16.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.23) In fine, Śaṅkara's scheme of Vedantic discipline is that thought and feelings, attitudes and dispositions, impulses and behaviour, are all to be shaped into new configurations. Conscious reflection on the background of these mental patterns brings home to the disciple a new order of values, other than those of ordinary life. Thus the study of the Vedānta is to proceed on the basis of such a re-oriented personality. ### [c16.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.24) \*\*Views of other Philosophers: Sureśvara.\*\* Sureśvara presents his scheme as follows. To achieve liberation (\*naishkarmasiddhi\*), one must destroy his ignorance which is non-realization of the unity of Self. This cannot be done by performance of religious rites which can, however, help it indirectly by purifying the mind by detaching it from all pleasures of this world or the next, as they are found to be ephemeral. Thence arises \*vairāgya\*, renunciation, followed by meditation on Vedic texts like "\*Tat Tvam asi\*." Another help towards this consummation is stated to be \*ashṭāṅga-yoga\* by which consciousness of external objects is lost. These eight \*aṅgas\* or factors of Yoga are (1) \*Yama\*, "restraints in the form of virtues like \*ahiṁsā\*, non-violence, and \*santosha\* or \*aparigraha\*, continence"; (2) \*Niyama\*, "observances like cleanliness, \*śaucha\*, sacrifices, repeating of Mantras, pouring of libations into fire, offerings to forefathers, charity, fasts, etc."; ### [c16.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.25) (3) \*Āsana\*, postures for meditation; (4) \*Prāṇāyāma\*, "regulation of breath by its inhalation, inhibition, and exhalation"; literally, "control of \*prāṇa\*, the vital plane, i.e. control of springs of impulses"; (5) \*Pratyāhāra\*, "detachment"; (6) \*Dhāraṇā\*, "retention and elaboration"; (7) \*Dhyāna\*, "contemplation of divinities like Śiva, Vishṇu, and the like"; and (8) \*Samādhi\*, "absorption in meditation." ### [c16.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.26) \*\*Vidyāraṇya.\*\* In his \*Anubhūtiprakāśa\*, Vidyāraṇya repeats the three means of attaining knowledge, viz. \*Śravaṇa\*, \*Manana\*, which he defines as reflection on what has been heard to remove doubts, and \*Nididhyāsana\*, defined as constant meditation to check tendency to error. He further points out that renunciation is indispensable to such meditation, because property entails activity. Therefore, property, i.e. all longing for progeny, wealth, fame, has to be given up for attaining knowledge. This implies the life of a householder which alone can make such renunciation possible. Meditation is possible only where there is no thought except thought of Self. ### [c16.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.27) \*\*Sadānanda.\*\* To Sadānanda we owe the interesting addition in his \*Vedāntasāra\* that students of Vedānta must guard against four obstacles to meditation, viz. (1) \*Laya\*, mental inertia or laziness of mind, (2) \*Vikshepa\*, distraction, turning of mind on things other than Truth, (3) \*Kashāya\*, passion which impedes the proper functioning of mind by kindling lust or other desires, and (4) \*Rasāsvāda\*, "tendency towards emotive enjoyments." ### [c16.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.28) \*\*Rāmānuja.\*\* While Śaṅkara eschews the study of Vedic texts relating to \*Dharma\* and concentrates on those relating only to \*Brahma\*, Rāmānuja does not believe in such restriction. His scheme includes a course of study of the whole Veda with its Karma-Kāṇḍa, because he believes that such a study will lead to the knowledge that the results of rituals are uncertain and transient. This disillusionment will be followed naturally by the desire for that which can secure permanent results. Thence arises \*brahmajijñāsā\*, the earnest quest of Brahman. Thus, in the opinion of Rāmānuja, "the inquiry into the nature of Brahman" may be preceded by a study of Dharma and practice of Vedic rituals so as to rate them at their proper worth and produce a sense of the eternal. ### [c16.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.29) \*\*Nimbārka.\*\* Nimbārka follows the line of thought indicated by Rāmānuja. He interprets the term \*atha\* to include a study of Dharma and performance of its rituals and argues thus: (1) A study of the Veda with all its six limbs (Vedāṅgas) leads to (2) reflection on the true nature of \*Karma\* and its results which are perceived to be ephemeral and not as aids to salvation. (3) The result of this reflection kindles a desire for a truer understanding of the Veda by (4) a study of \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\*. This study gives an insight into Dharma in all its phases and consequences as a system of ultimate laws. Then comes (5) a lively realization of the futility of Karma, of the method of rituals in the religious sphere, and of a life of objective activity and energy in the secular sphere. When the life of Karma is thus valued and exposed, (6) the problem of salvation reappears as the problem of problems, and (7) rouses fully "the inquiry into Brahman" ### [c16.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.30) The scheme of Nimbārka is ultimately an interpretation of the Vedānta Sūtras from the standpoint of devotional love. First, the resources of ritualistic religion must be fully exploited, their elements of devotion, and incentives to energy and activity, by means of a thorough Vedic study and intellectual culture. It is then only that one can take advantage of the higher spiritual discipline which takes possession of the total trends of the personality. Hindu thought takes philosophy in the sense of a totalitarian discipline and education. ### [c16.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.31) It is to be noted that in all these authoritative expositions of the system of training and education suitable for the study of Vedānta, a very minor part is assigned to study proper, i.e. study of the prescribed texts or literature to which so much importance is attached in modern and secular education. The pivot of this ancient system is not study of literature but an arduous struggle for realization of truth, a process of the gradual transformation of the mental plane through a progressive purification of the springs of action or action-tendencies (\*chittaśuddhi\*) as a means of meditation on the heights of which settle the eternal sunshine of the verities of Being. Education here is a living process of growth and not an 'additive' process. ### [c16.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.32) \*\*Social Implications of Vedantic Education.\*\* The dependence of Vedantic education on a study of the Veda raises some social issues which are indicated in the Sūtras and fully commented upon by Śaṅkara. The question is, since the study of Veda must await \*upanayana\* and other purificatory ceremonies from which the Śūdras are excluded, whether the Śūdras could be eligible for study of the Vedānta. Upanayana as a pre-requisite of Vedic study is recognized in Vedic literature \[e.g. \*Śata. Br.\*, xi, 5. 3, 13; \*Chhān. Upa.\*, v, 11, 7; vii, 1, 1; \*Praś. Upa.\*, i, 1\], while the Smṛitis do not consider Śūdras eligible for it \[e.g. Manu, x, 4, and 126\], prohibit their hearing and studying the Veda, and understanding and performing Vedic ceremonies. What they are entitled to is a knowledge of the Purāṇas and Itihāsas, which is open to all the castes. ### [c16.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.33) The Pūrvapakshin (critic), however, would maintain the eligibility of the Śūdras for the study of the Vedānta on the grounds that (\*a\*) they desire that knowledge, (\*b\*) they are capable of it, (\*c\*) there is no scriptural prohibition analogous to the text, "Therefore the Śūdra is unfit for performing sacrifices" \[\*Taitti. Saṁ.\*, vii, 1, 1, 6, 7\]. Bādarāyaṇa's reply to these arguments as interpreted by Śaṅkara is that mere desire for knowledge does not mean capacity for it; mere temporal capacity is nothing; spiritual capability is required in spiritual matters; and spiritual capability is absent in the Śūdras for their exclusion from study of Veda; while the Vedic prohibition of the performance of sacrifices by the Śūdras is due to their exclusion from the legitimate study of the Veda under a \*guru\*, through which alone a knowledge of the Veda can be acquired. ### [c16.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.34) Next, the Pūrvapakshin cites certain cases found in the Veda itself which seem to point to the imparting of Vedantic doctrines to a Śūdra or a man of doubtful caste, e.g. Jānaśruti and Jābāla. Appropriate answers are indicated in the Sūtras and explained by Śaṅkara. ### [c16.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.35) In the \*Chhāndogya Upanishad\*, iv, 1-3, Raikva first calls Jānaśruti a Śūdra, and then imparts to him the Saṁvarga-Vidyā ("a theory of Vāyu and Prāṇa as \*saṁvargāḥ\*, absorbers of the elements and life-organs"). The reply is that a single case does not make a rule; that the claim to one particular Vidyā does not mean claim to all Vidyās; and that the epithet Śūdra was applied by the Ṛishi in its etymological sense (viz. "one who rushes into grief", \*śuchāṁ abhidudrāva\*) to the sorrowful Jānaśruti by virtue of his supernatural insight into the king's mental state. Besides, in the story, Jānaśruti, being praised for the same Vidyā with the Kshatriya Abhipratārin, shows that the former was really a Kshatriya and not a Śūdra. To this Śaṅkara adds the further proof of his Kshatriyahood from the fact that he had a steward and other similar signs of power. This, as aptly pointed out by Deussen, itself shows that "for the time of Śaṅkara and also for that of Bādarāyaṇa it was by no means self-evident that a man of princely pomp and wealth like Jānaśruti could not have been a Śūdra", which is interesting from the point of view of both political and cultural history. ### [c16.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.36) As regards the story of Jābāla Satyakāma \[\*Chhā\*., iv, 4\], it points to the other conclusion: "on account of Gautama proceeding to initiate Jābāla on the ascertainment of his not being a Śūdra \[i, 3, 37\] \['from his speaking the truth' (Śaṅkara)\]." Śaṅkara quotes the following passage \[\*Chhā\*., iv, 4, 5\], on the point: 'None who is not a Brāhmaṇa would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth.' ### [c16.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.37) This way of taking the passage points to another significant fact that in those days "there was a disposition to let alone the question of Brāhmanhood by birth where a Brāhmanhood of heart and mind existed" \[Deussen, \*Philosophy of Vedānta\*\], a breadth of view and catholicity which recognized character as much as caste, and took liberties, when needed, with the social distinctions based on birth. ### [c16.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.38) Thus the Vedānta-Sūtras exclude the Śūdra from the study of the Veda to which they admit only the three twice-born classes. Brahmavidyā is for these fit persons, and the Ṛishis and gods themselves. ### [c16.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.39) The last point of educational and social interest discussed in the Vedānta-Sūtras is the question, How far the seeker after the highest Truth, the Knowledge of Brahman, is bound by the regulations of social life. We have already seen how the Vedānta, while mentioning the antecedent conditions of its study, has excluded the inquiry into \*Dharma\* or ceremonial religion as being unnecessary. The question is, Whether this exclusion means that the Vedāntin is not to continue even as a member of society, subject to the laws of caste and \*Āśramas\* and the obligations they prescribe. The conclusion of the matter is that he who has attained to the knowledge of the Brahman may at his option concern himself with such duties, but on him who has not yet attained it, such duties, the obligations of the four \*Āśramas\*, are ordinarily binding. This is clear from certain scriptural texts cited in the Sūtrās, e.g. "The Brāhmaṇas seek to know this (the supreme soul) by reading the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasts \[\*Bṛi. Upa\*., iv, 4, 22\]." These conditions apply only to those who are striving after knowledge and are called \*Vāhya\*, external, conditions, to be distinguished from the other more immediate, \*pratyāsanna\*, means of acquiring Vedāntic knowledge (such as \*śama\*, \*dama\*, etc., already described), which should not be given up by those who have even acquired that knowledge. Thus there are interesting instances quoted of men performing sacrifices even after their attainment of the knowledge of Brahman, and of others abstaining from them. Among the former are mentioned Aśvapati Kaikeya who, when approached for instruction by three Ṛishis, told them: "I am about to perform a sacrifice, Sirs" \[\*Chhā. Upa.\*, v, 11\]; also Janaka and other princes regarding whom it is said: "By Dharma only Janaka and others attained to perfection" \[Śaṅkara on \*Sūtra\*, iii, 4, 3\]. As regards men who, knowing Brahman, abandoned all work, Śaṅkara \[on iii, 4, 4\], cites texts such as: "The Ṛishis, descended from Kavasha, said: 'For what purpose should we study the Veda? For what purpose should we sacrifice?'" ### [c16.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.40) \*\*Other Features.\*\* From the evidence adduced above we may gather the following facts and features regarding the education of the times: (1) The intellectual life of the country did not always centre round rituals but grew up independently in the atmosphere of free and pure thought. The Vedāntin has nothing to do with Karma-Kāṇḍa or \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\*. ### [c16.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.41) (2) The condition precedent of all higher studies was the study of the Veda, the mastery of its words. Then follows bifurcation of or specialization in studies. To use the words of Śaṅkara \[on iii, 4, 12\]: "A man who has thus mastered the words of the Veda apprehends therefrom that it makes statements as to rituals producing certain results, and then on his own account applies himself to the inquiry into the meaning of those declarations; the who desires to follow the path of action applies himself to the knowledge of Dharma; he who is desirous of Release applies himself to the knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge is something different from mere cognition of sense." ### [c16.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.42) (3) The study of the Vedānta or the inquiry into Brahman is necessarily for the few and spiritually advanced who can devote themselves to it in complete detachment from the world or the objects of sense. This detachment can only be the outcome of the process of discipline pertaining to the four \*Āśramas\* of life or stages of its growth. This shows that the Vedānta was not for the novitiate; it was rather a part of the post-graduate course taken up either by the Naishṭhika or perpetual brahmachārin who would renounce the world for the sake of that knowledge or by the man of the world fitted for it by the purifying discipline and experience through which he has passed. Thus there were various grades of culture in the country suited to its different classes and ranks. The progress of a country depends largely upon the endowment of research maintaining a group of thinkers who would extend the bounds of knowledge. Such a class of seekers after truth, scientists, or philosophers did exist in ancient India, where students alone were not trusted to take care of the culture of the country. There was a vigorous intellectual life, apart from students and schools, which invaded the courts of kings (as evidenced in the Upanishads) and claimed even the aged householders as its votaries. ### [c16.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.43) (4) As to the education of the Śūdra, the Vedānta Sūtras imply a distinction between the Vedic texts and the wisdom or knowledge which they are meant to convey. The Śūdra is excluded from the former but not from the latter. The "saving" knowledge is not denied to him. It is, on the contrary, made accessible to him in easier works specially composed for him in a popular style and manner, such as the \*Mahābhārata\* and the \*Purāṇas\* sometimes called the fifth Veda. There are also on record examples of Śūdras attaining to the highest knowledge such as Vidura and Dharma-Vyādha \[\*Mbh.\*, iii, 206 f.\] \[Śaṅkara on i, 3, 38\]. The eligibility of the woman for the highest knowledge \[and therefore of the Śūdra too (?), for the Śūdra and the woman are given practically equal status by the Smṛitis\] is again emphasized in a later \*Sūtra\* \[iii, 4, 36\], where Śaṅkara cites the example of Vāchaknavī. But the example would seem to prove more than is perhaps intended in this particular \*Sūtra\*. For it might be recalled that Vāchaknavī was as competent a Vedic scholar as anybody else. She put herself forward as an opponent of the sage Yājñavalkya, and by virtue of her erudition and wisdom, dared challenge his assertion of pre-eminence in the great philosophical Congress which assembled at the court of King Janaka. Vāchaknavī was thus as much a student of the Veda as anybody else, and if the woman and the Śūdra are equal in status, privileges, and disabilities, it may be legitimately inferred that the study of the Veda itself (and not merely the acquisition through other works of the knowledge conveyed by the Veda) was open to the Śūdra too. The position is made still clearer by Śaṅkara in his comment on iii, 4, 38, where he quotes Manu \[ii, 87\], to show that the highest knowledge is even attainable through such special acts as praying, fasting, worshipping, and the like, which have nothing to do with \*Varṇa\* or \*Āśrama\* duties. Śaṅkara concludes with the statements: ### [c16.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.44) "Knowledge is open to anyone who is desirous of it," and "prayer alone qualifies for knowledge." Rāmānuja \[on i, 3, 39\] also seems to hold Śaṅkara responsible for the view that the Śūdra is not excluded from the highest knowledge ("cognition of Brahman") and tries to prove the error of the view. But Śaṅkara's real position (which he seems to misunderstand) is that it is the qualification which matters, and not the accident of birth and that the qualification once acquired (as the result of Vedic study) can never be lost in any subsequent birth. No kind of obstacle (e.g. Śūdrahood) can prevent Vedic study (made in a previous life) from producing its own fruits \[Śaṅkara on i, 3, 38\]. ### [c16.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.45) It is to be noted in conclusion that the \*Vedānta-Sūtras\* were preceded by considerable speculation on similar lines, the results of which are referred to in the \*Sūtras\* themselves. Bādarāyaṇa refers to the opinions associated with the following earlier masters, viz. Ātreya, Āśmarathya, Auḍalomi, Kārshṇājini, Kāśakṛitsna, Jaimini, and Bādari. It would appear, too, that these Doctors of the Vedānta differ among themselves considerably not merely upon minor points, but also upon essential doctrines of the system. This shows only the vitality and vigour of Vedāntic thought which has a history of its own. The work of Bādarāyaṇa occupies a central place in that history. While it summarizes the results of antecedent speculation, it has become also the source of much subsequent speculation flowing in an ever-broadening stream down to this day, with yet a future before it. ### [c16.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.46) \*\*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā and its System of Discipline.\*\* The subject of \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\* is the \*Karma-Kāṇḍa\* or \*Dharma\* of Veda, as that of \*Uttara-Mīmāṁsā\* is \*Jñāna-Kāṇḍa\* or \*Brahma\*. The \*Uttara-Mīmāṁsā\* seeks to evolve a system out of the Upanishads. The \*Purva-Mīmāṁsā\* seeks to reconcile the divergent ceremonials and customs as preserved in the \*Brāhmaṇas\* by evolving a general and rational scheme, a philosophy of ritualism showing the place and justification for each particular rite by the method of \*mīmāṁsā\*, "investigation, examination, consideration." ### [c16.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.47) The very first sentence of the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā is "\*Athāto Dharma-jijñāsā\*", "Now therefore the desire of knowing Dharma or duty." \*Dharma\* here refers to prescriptive observances comprising sacrifices in the main as enjoined in the \*Brāhmaṇas\*. The \*Sarva-Darśana Saṁgraha\* finds in this first sentence the suggestion of several complicated issues which are pertinent to the present inquiry for their educational interest. They may be presented as follows after Mādhava: The main issue is, whether the study of Dharma as proposed by Jaimini's \*Mīmāṁsā\* is to be undertaken or not. To settle it, we must answer the possible objections to it. Study of \*Mīmāṁsā\* is not implied by the command that the Veda is to be read (\*Vedodhyetavyaḥ\*). ### [c16.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.48) The meaning of this injunction may be twofold. The Veda is to be studied and understood as well, like any other book we read. This can, however, be done by studying the Veda under a qualified teacher. But there is no injunction to study the \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\* as a means of knowing the sense of the Veda. The second meaning of the Vedic injunction is that the Veda is merely to be learnt by heart, which "merely enjoins the making oneself master of the literal words of the Vedic text without any care to understand the meaning which they may convey", regarding the Veda simply as a work good in itself with its reward in heaven. ### [c16.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.49) We have already seen how popular was this view of the methods of Vedic study in earlier times according to which the mastery of the mere sound of the Vedic words was meritorious acquisition or accomplishment and the Veda committed to memory would be more efficacious than if it is rationally read and understood. This view of the injunction enjoining the study of the Veda thus leaves no room for the study of \*Mīmāṁsā\* at all, which concerns itself with the meaning of the Vedic texts. There is, however, a third objection taken to the study of \*Mīmāṁsā\* and that is based on the Smṛiti rule that "having read the Veda, let him bathe". For this rule clearly implies that no long interval must elapse between reading the Veda and the student's return to his home. This rule, however, would be violated if after completing the study of the Veda in either of the senses aforesaid, the student would still have to continue in his preceptor's place for the intervening study of the \*Mīmāṁsā\*. Thus it is argued that for these three reasons, viz. (\*a\*) that the study of \*Mīmāṁsā\* is not enjoined, (\*b\*) that heaven can be obtained by the simple memorizing of the Vedic text, and (\*c\*) that the rule for the student's return to home is thus fulfilled, it is to be maintained that the study of the Mīmāṁsā discussions on Dharma is not to be undertaken. ### [c16.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.50) This position is now met by the Siddhāntin. The study of Mīmāṁsā is no doubt not enjoined as a \*Vidhi\* but necessary as a \*Niyama\*. The injunction "the Veda is to be read" shows that it is regarded as a means to some end and that end is the knowledge of the meaning as obtained by carrying out the sense of the words of the injunction. Now the knowledge of the meaning cannot be obtained by reading the simple text of the Veda even under an authorized teacher. It may, however, be said that he who reads the Veda along with its \*Aṅgas\*, grammar, etc., may attain to this knowledge and that the study of \*Mīmāṁsā\* is uncalled for. The reply is that he may thus attain to a mere simple knowledge of the literal meaning, while for all deeper investigation he must depend upon the Mīmāṁsā discussions, which thus constitute a means towards the highest end of Vedic study, viz. the proper performance of its commands. As regards the violation of the Smṛiti rule that "having read the Veda, let him bathe", the words do not necessarily imply that the return to the paternal roof is to follow immediately on his having read the Veda; but only that it is to follow it at some time, and that both actions are to be done by the same person. Hence the Smṛiti injunction does not rule out the study of the Mīmāṁsā. ### [c16.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.51) When the necessity of a study of \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\* as a part of "the inquiry into Dharma" is thus established, the next point to be considered is, what is the kind of preliminary and preparatory training contemplated by the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā? According to Prabhākara (in his \*Bṛihatī\* commentary on \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā Sūtras\*), such preparation means the study of the Veda. Kumārila in his \*Tantravārttika\* goes a little farther and holds that for a study of Dharma or acquisition of knowledge of Self, the performance of Vedic rituals is a necessity, and such performance depends on a study of the Veda, and that under the prescribed system of \*Brahmacharya\*. Thus the point of view advanced here is (1) that for the knowledge of Self the proper performance of sacrificial ceremonies is essential and is thus a means to that end; and (2) that this knowledge of Self is achieved by a process of worship led up to by inquiry and understanding undertaken by the \*Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā\*. ### [c16.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.52) Śavara Svāmī, however, holds a completely contrary view. He does not admit that a study of the Veda is at all a preparatory requisite for the study of \*Mīmāṁsa\*. In his view the \*Mīmāṁsā\* by itself is a self-sufficient system like \*Yoga\* and itself leads to a proper understanding of the Veda (Vedavākyānāṁ anekavidho vichāra iha vartishyate). ### [c16.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.53) It is to be noted that the importance of Mīmāṁsā is due more to its method than to the matter to which the method is applied. The Mīmāṁsā method of intellectual discipline is possessed of a larger appeal than its subject of inquiry which is of more limited interest. Its logical apparatus, its methods and canons of criticism and interpretation have received a wider application and especially in the sphere of Law where they are utilized to settle disputed points. The old Hindu Courts of Justice always included as Judges what are called \*Mīmāṁsakas\*. ### [c16.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.54) \*\*Eligibility of Women and Śūdras for Education.\*\* The \*Mīmāṁsā\* throws some light on the status of women and Śūdras and their place in the intellectual and religious life of the country. In discussing the \*adhikāra vidhis\* or the eligibility for the performance of sacrifices, Jaimini is led on to discuss whether women are to be considered to have that eligibility. The objections to it (the Pūrvapaksha) are thus stated: "Women have no property. What they have rests in the husband. They are bought and sold like goods." To this the answer of the Siddhāntin is to the following effect: Women are as good as men in point of the desire and capacity for performing sacrifices. They may not own property but have control over it. For their consent is obtained to the men's gifts. As regards the payment of dowry by the bride's father, it is made in accordance with the rule of Smriti and not as a commercial transaction. For otherwise the amount of the dowry would vary with the merits of the bride. Besides, it is expressly laid down that the husband and wife must jointly perform the \*Yāgas\* or sacrifices. Similarly, as regards the status of the Śūdras, Jaimini shows a very liberal spirit. He begins by postulating that sacrifices must not be mechanically but intelligently performed to be efficacious. Thus emphasis is laid upon a man's merit rather than his caste. The disability of the Śūdras is limited only to the Āgneya Yāgas and due to some express texts (viz. that of the Rishi Ātreya) \[Jaimini, vi, i, 1–7\]. Jaimini takes his stand upon the opinion of Bādari that all without any distinction desiring heaven can perform sacrifice. Thus the religious life was open both to women and Śūdras according to the \*Mīmāṁsā\* which means that they could acquire the necessary intellectual equipment for it. ### [c16.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.55) \*\*The Nyāya System of Discipline.\*\* Although the Nyāya Philosophy does not encourage mysticism and the consequent moral disciplines, yet it does not dispense with these altogether. ### [c16.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.56) The structure of its reasoning may be briefly presented thus. A true knowledge of the Self is necessary to achieve the highest good or \*mukti\*, but this knowledge does not come at once. It has to be acquired by stages. First, it comes from the Scriptures, that is, what the Vedānta calls \*Śravaṇa\*. Next, it is confirmed by reasoning, what Vedānta calls reflection or \*Manana\*. Then follows direct cognition of Self, or self-realization through concentrated contemplation and meditation. When all these stages are gone through, then alone is Ignorance, the root of all defects, removed \[\*Nyāya Sūtra\*, i, 1, 1-2; \*Nyāya-Vārttika\*, Translation, p. 93, note\]. ### [c16.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.57) It is to be noted, however, that concentrated contemplation and meditation as a step towards true knowledge is not at all possible for a man until he has shed his defects. ### [c16.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.58) These \*Defects\* have been thus classified:— ### [c16.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.59) A. \*Rāga\*, Desire, as expressed in the forms of \*Kāma\* (lust), \*Matsara\* (selfishness), \*Spṛihā\* (greed), or \*Tṛishṇā\* (wish to possess others' property lawfully or unlawfully). ### [c16.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.60) B. \*Dvesha\*, Hatred, expressed as \*Krodha\* (anger), \*Irshā\* (jealousy), \*Asūyā\* (envy), \*Droha\* (malice), and \*Amarsha\* (impatience). ### [c16.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.61) C. \*Moha\*, defective outlook in its different forms like \*Mithyājñānam\* (error), \*Vichikitsā\* (doubt), \*Māna\* (egotism), or \*Pramāda\* (inattentiveness) \[\*Nyāya Sūtra\*, iv, 1, 2\]. ### [c16.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.62) These various basic Defects are rooted in Ignorance, i.e. a wrong conception of the objects of cognition \[ib., iv, 1, 68\]. This Ignorance is to be dispelled or destroyed by true Knowledge. And true Knowledge can only come from Meditation \[iv, 2, 35; 3, 38\]. Meditation means (1) that the mind is withdrawn from the sense-organs, and (2) is kept steady by effort towards concentration, and then (3) it comes into contact with the Self, and (4) is filled with an eagerness to get at the Truth. Such Meditation will not allow any cognitions with reference to the objects of the external world. ### [c16.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.63) Such Meditation is, however, always hindered by physical as well as moral obstacles. The practice of \*Yoga\* is necessary to overcome such obstacles. Thus to achieve success in Meditation, one should equip himself by \*Yoga\*, i.e. \*Yuma\* (restraints), \*Niyama\* (observances), and other prescribed methods of internal discipline such as penance, breath-regulation (\*prāṇāyāma\*), abstraction (\*pratyāhāra\*), contemplation (\*dhyāna\*), and concentration of mind (\*dhāraṇā\*). ### [c16.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.64) The \*Nyāya Sūtras\* further recommend as aids to learning (1) continuous study of philosophy, (2) discussion with persons learned in philosophy, especially with the teacher, the pupil, and one's fellow-pupil, and (3) even disputations and controversies which have their uses in thrashing out the Truth \[iv, 2, 38–50\]. ### [c16.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.65) Lastly, the \*Nyāya\* position is that knowledge comes when \*Defects\* are rooted out and all \*Activity\* ceases, both righteous and unrighteous. \*Activity\*, righteous or unrighteous, is described as being of three kinds, viz. Verbal, Mental, and Bodily. ### [c16.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.66) Unrighteous \*Verbal activity\* is of four kinds : (1) \*Anṛita\* (lying), (2) \*Parusha\* (harsh speech), (3) \*Asūyana\* (back-biting), and (4) \*Asambaddha\* (irrelevant talk). ### [c16.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.67) Righteous \*Verbal activity\* will be of four kinds, \*Satya-Priya-Hita-Vachana\*, "truthful, agreeable, and wholesome speech," and \*Svādhyāya-Pāṭha\* (reciting the Veda). ### [c16.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.68) Unrighteous \*Mental activity\* is of three kinds: (1) Thought of injuring others (\*paradroha\*), (2) Longing for others' belongings (\*paradravyābhilāshā\*), and (3) Irreverent attitude (\*nāstikā-nudhyāna\*). ### [c16.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.69) \*Mental activity\* of the right kind will have three forms : (1) \*Aspṛihā\* (freedom from desire), (2) \*Anukampā\* (compassion), (3) \*Paralokaśraddhā\* (belief in the other world). ### [c16.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.70) Unrighteous \*Bodily activity\* is of three kinds: (1) \*Hiṁsā\* (killing), (2) \*Steya\* (stealing), and (3) \*Pratishiddhācharaṇa\* (doing what is forbidden). ### [c16.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.71) Righteous \*Bodily activity\* is of three kinds: (1) \*Dāna\* (Charity), (2) \*Paritrāṇa\* (Protection), and (3) \*Parichāraṇa\* (Service) \[\*Nyāya-Mañjarī\*, p. 499, ed. Gaṅgādhara Sāstrī in Viziānagram Sanskrit Series\]. ### [c16.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.72) Besides the general scheme of discipline and training implied by Nyāya Philosophy, we shall now consider other special points of education brought out in its Sūtras. ### [c16.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.73) \*\*Elements of Knowledge.\*\* According to Gautama, Knowledge is made up of a comprehension of sixteen \*padārthas\* or topics, the discussions of some of which have a bearing upon education. ### [c16.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.74) \*\*Pramāṇa.\*\* The first topic is \*Pramāṇa\* or means of knowledge which are described as fourfold, viz. (1) \*Pratyaksha\*, sensuous perception, (2) \*Anumāna\*, inference, (3) \*Upamāna\*, comparison, and (4) \*Śabda\* or the Word, particularly that of the Veda. This shows that \*Nyāya\*, far from repudiating the Veda, acknowledges it as a source of knowledge itself. ### [c16.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.75) \*\*Śabda including non-Vedic Revelation.\*\* \*Śabda\* is explained as \*Āptopadeśa\* \[i, 1, 7\], i.e. as a precept of one worthy to be trusted, or a right precept. It refers to both visible and invisible objects. It is noteworthy that the commentator holds that it is possible even for the Mlechchhas or barbarians as well as for Ṛishis and Āryas to be regarded as \*āpta\* or those whose authority is to be followed. This shows the broad catholicity and toleration of the philosophers who, on grounds of dry and dispassionate reason, could not but accord the same place to non-Vedic as to Vedic revelation, the growth and importance of which are also clearly indicated by the Sūtra and its commentary in question. There were other worlds and systems of thought than the Vedic in ancient India, claiming numerous followers of their own. ### [c16.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.76) As regards the merits of this analysis of the sources of valid knowledge, the following remarks of Max Müller are very appropriate \[\*Six Systems\*, p. 374\]: "It seems to me highly creditable to Indian Philosophers that they should have understood the necessity of such an analysis on the very threshold of any system of philosophy. How many misunderstandings might have been avoided if all philosophers had recognized the necessity of such an introductory chapter? If we must depend for all our knowledge, first on our senses, then on our combinatory and reasoning faculties, the question whether Revelation falls under the one or the other, or whether it can claim an independent authority can far more easily be settled than if such questions are not asked \*in limine\*, but turn up casually whenever transcendental problems come to be treated." ### [c16.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.77) \*Anumāna\*. Secondly, it may also be noted that, while accredited authority is regarded as a source of knowledge whose findings have to be taken for granted, a due emphasis is also laid upon the positive methods and objective standards for the investigation of truth. ### [c16.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.78) The first source of knowledge is \*Pramāṇa\*, observation or perception, direct, personal, and independent. As pointed out by Dr. B. N. Seal \[\*Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus\*, ch. vii\], "the entire apparatus of scientific method proceeded on the basis of observed instances carefully analysed and sifted." The second means of knowledge is \*Anumāna\* (Inference), which is the process of ascertaining, not by perception or direct observation, but through the instrumentality or medium of a mark that a thing possesses a certain character. ### [c16.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16.79) Inference is, therefore, based on the establishment of an invariable concomitance (\*Vyāpti\*) between the mark and the character inferred. The Hindu inference is, therefore, neither merely formal nor merely material, but a combined Formal-Material Deductive-Inductive process. It is neither the Aristotelian syllogism (Formal Deductive process) nor Mill's Induction (Material-Inductive process) but the real Inference which must combine formal validity with material truth, inductive generalization with deductive particularization. _First 78 of 302 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16)_ ## Linked texts (34) - [Yogasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.yoga.yogasutra.1.29) — Patañjali (author of the Yogasūtra), Sanskrit - [Nyāyasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.nyaya.nyayasutra.4.1.2) — Akṣapāda Gautama, Sanskrit - [Chāndogyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.chandogya.8.15) — Sanskrit - [Brahmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.vedanta.brahmasutra.3.4.3) — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit - [Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.brhadaranyaka.4.4.22) — Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.10.4) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Taittirīyasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*taittiriya.7.1.1.6) — Sanskrit - [Kaṭhopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.katha.3.12) — Sanskrit - [Praśnopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.prasna.1.1) — Pippalāda, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.3.206) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vaiśeṣikasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.vaisesika.vaisesikasutra.1.1.3) — Kaṇāda, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.2.24.11) — Sanskrit - [Maitrāyaṇīyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.maitri.2.6) — Sanskrit - [Taittirīyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.taittiriya.2.1) — Sanskrit - [Viṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.visnu.1.15) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.11.5.3.13) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Carakasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.med.samhita.caraka) — Agniveśa (Āyurveda) & Caraka, Sanskrit - [Nyāyamañjarī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.nyaya.nyayamanjari) — Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Mīmāṃsāsūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra) — Jaimini, Sanskrit - [Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha) — Mādhava, Sanskrit - [Upadeśasāhasrī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.prakarana.early.upadesasahasri) — Śaṅkara, Sanskrit - [Brahmajālasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.1) — Pāli - [Nyāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.nyaya) — Sanskrit - [Vaiśeṣika](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.vaisesika) — Sanskrit - [Sāṃkhyakārikā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.samkhya.samkhyakarika) — Īśvarakṛṣṇa, Sanskrit - [Sāṃkhya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.samkhya) — Sanskrit - [Upaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad) — Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Yoga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.yoga) — Sanskrit - [Bhagavadgītā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.gita) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vedānta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.vedanta) — Sanskrit - [Śvetāśvataropaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.svetasvatara) — Śvetāśvatara, Sanskrit - [Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.saddarsanasamuccaya) — Haribhadra Sūri, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.mookerji-1947.c16) · Pramāṇa