pratyakṣānumānāgamāḥ pramāṇāni The sources of correct understanding are direct perception,
inference and words (written or spoken) by authorities. So here we see the English
synonyms for each of the Sanskrit words in this śloka or sutra.
I think all of them are relatively easy to follow; I just want to
make mention of 'agamāḥ', which is authoritative testimony, and in the
ancient Vedic culture, since the very beginnings these authorities were
considered ...well loosely termed, a scriptural authority or written
spiritual texts, and words of the great saintly teachers - the rishi's, and genuine or
bona fide guru.
So this is the first of the five vṛttis mentioned by Patañjali, and it
is called 'pramāṇāni', or the different methods of obtaining accurate
information about reality. How one perceives and correctly understands
reality is dealt with in great detail in the sāṅkya-yoga system. We will just
touch on it here for a moment. The originator of sāṅkya-yoga is the great
Kapiladeva. Something that has been
mentioned to me by my spiritual teachers ...my guru...was that, in reality there were two
Kapila's. There was the Kapiladeva, who in the most ancient of times was considered
an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, and he spoke to his mother Devahūti, the sāṅkya
philosophy. Then a considerable time after that - still in ancient times for us -
there was another proponent of sāṅkya who also had the name Kapila,
and what he did was codify many of these teachings in a sāṅkya text. And
sometimes there is a bit of confusion between these two personalities.
Vyāsa, the commentator, or the earliest known commentator that we have on
Patañjali's Yoga Sutra, he concludes his commentary by stating that
this is the commentary of sāṅkya-yoga, as that is propounded.... on the
yoga philosophy propounded by Patañjali. So we understand that not all of the
principles that were presented by the second
Kapila, are completely in line with older Vedic authority and Vedic teachings. So
for that reason, we don't necessarily accept all of Vyāsa's commentary as
being what Patañjali actually meant. For myself and others and in such lineages,
we understand that the commentary must align with Vedic authority - 'agamāḥ'. So
direct sense perception is one of the items being mentioned here, and here it
is referencing of course to the ordinary senses, but there has to be this
understanding and appreciation about the sense of limitations, or the limitations
placed on the senses. It is true that our five senses can indicate to us some
reality as opposed to a fantasy, but we also understand that there are
limitations to this perception in terms of whether we are really perceiving
the ultimate spiritual reality. Our eyes we understand, are very limited and one
must gifted with spiritual vision, which is
what the quest for spiritual realization is all about, in order to truly see
things as as they are. So while the direct perception of things gives us a
sense of what is real, or apparently real to us that... things of substance, is
probably a better way to put it... in this world, we understand there is a
limitation, and the same thing also applies for the use of of logic - here
called 'anumāna'. We can learn that, for instance by the
process of deductive logic, how heat can burn, simply by observing someone else.
For instance if I see a young child or someone accidentally touching like a
candle...a flame on a candle... and they burn their finger, then I can deduce from that
whenever I see this thing that's emitting heat and light called fire, that
it is capable of burning. I can also extend that logic to anything that is
emitting or giving off enough heat, that if I get too close to it I can also be
burned. So this is the use of of deductive logic or anumana. It however
does have its limitations... as we will speak about that in a minute.
'Agamāḥ' - this term, 'an authority', is ...in the common sense we could use it... for
instance as a professor in a university, if I want to study some
subject, and I approach somebody that has that knowledge already, then they can
impart that to me and I can derive, or come to an a correct
understanding on a particular subject.
But it should be understood that the authoritative speaker does not 'create'
agamah, but whatever is being presented is considered agamah if it is actual
truth, and therefore the person speaking it can be considered an authority. So if
a teacher is wrong in what they are saying or presenting, then that is not
agamah. It's not just a blind acceptance of authority based upon external things;
it's based upon their ability to speak and to pass on that which is truth. In
the Vedic teachings of agamāḥ, or testimony, their...the way they presented
it is even a much higher principle. Our senses are limited, and therefore cannot
show that there is no reality beyond the limits of our perception, if you
understand that. I mean if I can only see a distance of just, for example... you know
of five miles or five kilometers, and then everything is gone from my vision.
You know...I can probably see further than that, but just for example, if anything
exists beyond the limits of what I can see, it doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist; it just means that I have limited central perception. Vedic pramāṇa
distinguishes between logic and testimonial authority. The word 'śabda'
- 'śabda' means sound; literally means sound, but the 'śabda' that is cited as
authoritative Vedic testimony is known by the term 'śabda-brahman'.
'Śabda Brahman' or spiritual sound, is considered the ultimate authority, so
it is in a category by itself, distinct from logic or anumāna, and pratyakṣa,
or direct perception. Spiritual sound, as opposed to ordinary sound, is also known
as what's called 'svataḥ-pramāṇa.' And that means its authority is self-evident;
it does not derive it's authority from from another pramāṇa. But this is a
quite deep subject... I didn't want to get too deeply into it, but just wanted to
mention it here.