The scope of reasoning (tarka)

             Reasoning, by itself, is not sufficient for attaining knowledge of Brahman, but reasoning which does not run counter to the upanishadic texts is useful as a help.

B.S. 1.1.1. S.B--- tasmaat brahmajijnaasopanyaasamukhena----- --- ---- prastuuyate.

Therefore, beginning with a statement of the desire to know Brahman, there is begun an enquiry for the ascertainment of the meaning of the Vedaanta texts, with the help of reasoning not inconsistent with those texts, the object  being  liberation (through knowledge).

B.S.1.1. 2.S.B--- vaakyaarthavichaaraNaadhyavasaananirvr.ttaa--- ----- dars’ayati.

The realization of Brahman results from the firm conviction arising out of deliberation on the upanishadic texts and their meaning, but not from other means of knowledge such as inference, etc. With regard, however, to the texts that speak of the origin, sustenance and dissolution of the universe, even reasoning, not opposed to these texts, is not ruled out as a means of reinforcing the meaning of these texts. In fact, the upanishads themselves accept reasoning as an aid. For instance, it is said, “The Self is to be heard about, to be rflected on” (Br.up.2.4.5). And also the text, “A man, well-informed and intelligent, can reach the country of the Gandharas; similarly, a man who has a teacher attains knowledge” (Ch.up.6.14.2), shows that the texts rely on the aid of the human intellect also (i.e. they give importance to reasoning).            

B.S.2.1.6.S.B--- yadapi s’ravaNavyatirekeNa mananam vidadhat -------- brahmaavyatirekaH ityevamjaatiiyakaH.

It was also claimed that by enjoining reflection over and above hearing, the Br. up. itself indicates that logic also is to be accepted. Though this is so, mere empty logic cannot be given a place here merely because of this; for, logic conforming to the upanishads is alone resorted to here as a subsidiary means to help realization. The logic that is acceptable is of the following nature. Since the states of sleep and wakefulness contradict each other, the Self is not identified with either of them; since the individual soul dissociates itself from the world in the state of deep sleep to become one with the Self which is Existence, it must be the same as the transcendental Self; since the universe has originated from Brahman and since the principle is that cause and effect are non-different, the universe must be non-different from Brahman; and so on. It is reasoning of this kind that has been used in VivekachuuDaamaNi to conclude that none of the five sheaths can be the self (verse 156 onwards).

B.S.2.1.11.S.B--- itas’cha na aagamagamye arthe kevalena tarkeNa--------- parasparavipratipattidars’anaat.

For this reason also one should not, on the strength of mere logic, propound something that has to be known only from the Vedas. Reasoning that has no foundation in the Veda and springs from the imagination of persons lacks conclusiveness. Man’s conjecture has no limits. Thus it is seen that an argument put forward by one learned person is proved to be unsustainable by another learned person. That again is proved to be untenable by yet another person. The result is that no argument can be accepted as conclusive. It is well known that even great men like Kapila and kanada hold divergent views. (Therefore, only conclusions firmly based on the scriptures and supplemented by proper reasoning can stand scrutiny).        

KaTha up. 1.2.9.S.B--- ato ananyaprokta aatmani----

This wisdom about the Self, as presented in the Vedas, that arises when instruction is given by one who has become identified with It, cannot be attained through mere argumentation, based merely on one’s own intellect.

B.S.1.1.2 S.B--- na dharmajijnaasaayaamiva s’rutyaadaya --------------------- brahmajnaanasya.

The scriptures, by themselves alone, are not the means for Self-knowledge. The scriptures have to be supplemented by reasoning and actual experience, unlike in the case of performance of rites, where the scriptures alone are the authority. In the case of rites there is no question of direct experience, since the result is to be attained only at some future time, whereas in the case of knowledge of Brahman actual experience is the culmination. 

 To Contents