Does shabda make pratyaksha invalid? Part 2 The Monk’s Podcast 206 with Radhika Raman Prabhu

Podcast:

Video:

To die I am going to die I am going to I am So the topic of the way I titled it was your thought of the scope of Shabda. But the way I titled it was that the Shabda invalidates Pratyaksha because that is ultimately one critical question where this epistemology can be difficult for people. So I thought I will quickly do a summary of what we have discussed till now.

And then. Excellent. Thank you.

Excellent. So basically the way we started the discussion was that there are these various Pramanas for understanding and there is the object of knowledge Giyanya and Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda are three ways of acquiring knowledge or this is one way, each of them their own domain or is Shabda the all-encompassing body of knowledge which gives us knowledge about everything. So that was the broad question which we started.

And then you mentioned about how each Pramana is valid. And the problem is not with the Pramana itself. It is our capacity to access that Pramana.

And even with Pratyaksha, we are not being given senses just so that we reject them. In fact, the perfection of the senses is to see person's spiritual reality and that is Vaidusha Pratyaksha. So the Pramana itself is every Pramana is valuable and can and properly understood can be valid.

And then you also mentioned about how Shabda is not just necessarily scripture, it is testimony by authority, verbal testimony. And in a specific sense, it refers to the Vedas, but it can also refer to later on we discussed how even the medicinal texts, Ayurveda Shastra, they are also considered to be Shabda at one level. So ultimately, reality is to be perceived from various directions with the various Pramanas and the same one reality that we are trying to attain.

So it's not that it is when we are using our limited capacity, then Pratyaksha and Uman Shabda may seem to be divergent. And then when Shastra scripture talks about emphasising Shabda, that is because for Pratyaksha there is natural acceptance because we believe what we see. And for inference also that is it's based on logic, we can infer, so Hanuman is also accepted as we trust our brain.

But for Shabda, especially because it is based on authority, it is not so easy to accept and because it is also about subject matter that are beyond our domain of experience, that's why emphasis on Shabda has to be given. So that is not meant to necessarily reject Pratyaksha and Uman, it is just to emphasise the both the necessity and the validity of the Shabda. Then, so both extremes, we discussed some quotes about how in its own domain of sensory experience Pratyaksha is valid.

In ordinary experience, whose domain extends everywhere in day to day life, Pratyaksha is what is considered valid. So to consider only Pratyaksha valid or to consider only Shabda valid, that is basically the extremes of a pendulum. And then we discussed in our own tradition examples of how Pratyaksha is in one sense is used to not so much validate Shabda or as to demonstrate Shabda to get a deeper understanding of Shabda.

So Krishna explains about his opulence and then Arjuna requests that opulence be demonstrated. He also mentioned how phale na parichayate, that the fruit, a thing is known by its fruit, Prabhupada would speak that. So if we, or just the principle that any Pramana by itself can limit and limit and be limiting applies even to Pratyaksha, we talked about how there is no way by Pratyaksha we can know even a country as popular as China exists, or like David Hume's point of, there is always, we can see one event, another event, but we can, it's only through inference, induction that we can say there's a causal connection between them.

So cause and effect is so foundational to our understanding of things, but even that cannot be arrived simply by Pratyaksha. That should be Pratyaksha followed by inference, Hanuman. And then Shabda and Pratyaksha can both complement each other, both can work in synergy.

That was the theme we were discussing, that quoting from Jigo Swami Saraswadini, how Shabda does not suffocate Pratyaksha or Hanuman. And the word darshan can apply to all three things, literal seeing, to inference, and to Vaidusha Pratyaksha, Shabda. So in one sense, Shabda and Pratyaksha point in the same direction, but Shabda goes much further.

Then we discussed about how Shabda comes through, some elaborate mechanism for that, elaborate analysis of how there is perfection in the message in spite of there being some limitations in the mediums. And in the Vedic Samhitas, there is an insistence on literal replication, but in Puranas, the essential meaning is being conveyed and that's why there are variant treatings, Patanthar Shukadeva Goswami is glorified for having added something more, that is, he made it more nectarean. And then we were discussing about the domains of how things work.

So Shabda can be transmitted through Saporishya and Tadanugatha, that which follows that. So Pratyaksha is needed to receive Shabda, after all we have to use our senses. Then we discussed about Pratyaksha cannot override Shabda, but Pratyaksha and Shabda can work together.

So we are going to discuss now, the idea that this Vedanta Sutra calls this world a Shabdam, that means in one sense Shabda is not needed to know this world. So we will be discussing what you said is, when there is a conflict between the various Pramanas or when can we know Shabda has been accessed correctly and also how the Pramanas can be brought in dialogue with each other. Any other points you want to add or contextualise our discussion? Thank you for that excellent summary, Bhuv.

Your summary is even better than the original presentation. So this is excellent. I'll just, I'll add two things or emphasise two things.

I think you already mentioned these, but I want to highlight them a little bit more. One is that it should be mentioned as we did in the last podcast, that Shabda is still supreme among the Pramanas and especially because it gives knowledge beyond human perception. And so, whereas the other Pramanas have human perception and whatever reasoning we build upon that as their limitations.

And this is why the primary scope of Shabda is things that are beyond the human level. And then this, our metaphysical subjects. The second thing that I wanted to mention is that we can be led astray whenever we take one Pramana uncritically or exclusive to the others, right? They each balance each other.

Again, this is not a shortcoming in the Pramanas themselves. This is a shortcoming in our ability to assess what is a valid Pramana. And so, Shabda, for example, we gave that Shabda is, when we take Shabda to the exclusion of Pratyaksha, then we are susceptible to accepting any claim to authority.

Someone says, I am God and we say, yes, you are God. Because you are God, everything you say must be the truth. That is an uncritical and incorrect use of Shabda.

But Prabhupada explains, 11th chapter of Gita, that we must use our Pratyaksha to question that immediately. Please show me your universal form. And if the person can do it, then okay, we have some more validation.

Similarly, as you mentioned with David Hume, when we take Pratyaksha to the exclusion of the others, then we can devolve into pure scepticism that's born from exclusive reliance on our senses. So Shabda without Pratyaksha, you get uncritical, incorrect, and blind following is the word Prabhupada used to use on a regular basis, right? That it's blind following. And Pratyaksha without Shabda becomes just absurd enquiry, absurd scepticism.

So Prabhupada says both blind following and absurd enquiry are condemned. So these two points I wanted to highlight from our previous session, that Shabda supremacy cannot be, is real. It's not that the three are in dialogue, therefore, they are equals.

Shabda retains the senior position, even as the three rely upon each other. Yes, thank you. So we can always go to the extremes.

Sometimes we can Shabda alone as supreme. But Shabda can also be, we can also reject Shabda in the name of, we can, sorry, reject everything else. So Shabda in the highest doesn't mean that everything else is invalid.

Exactly. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Yes, so now discuss about contradictions or? So, so I was thinking we might, we might raise the question that the next thing I wanted to address was this question of when, what, how do we know that Shabda's claim to being to divine descent to being from a reliable perfect source is true? Because this is a question Jeeva Goswami addresses in Sarva Sambhadini. Remember last time when we discussed it, there was Shabda's Aporushaya is coming from a non-material source. It's coming from a non-human source, therefore Aporushaya.

And then also another aspect of Shabda is trusted human sources for knowledge. There's two levels of Shabda that we can distinguish in Jeeva Goswami's statements. So this, this we discussed last time, but I guess the million dollar question is how do we know, right? How do we know that? And it's a question you've raised also, which is that, is there any internal mechanism within Shabda to, to validify its own reliability, right? And so I think that's the question we want, I want to start with.

And then after that, I want to lead to this question of what do we do when, when Shabda and Pratyaksha directly contradict. So those, those are the two things I'd like to do in order. And then, and then some final reflections on, on how they work dialogically.

Is that okay for PlanPro? Please, please. Definitely. Okay.

Okay. So, so with the first one, how do we know about the validity of Shabda? So Shri Jeeva Goswami, he addresses this question in his Sarva Samvadini, which is basically what we've been following in this conversation with each other. We've been moving towards in this podcast, last part in this part, the various aspects of Jeeva Goswami's presentation of the relationship between the Pramanas in his Sarva Samvadini, which is, as a reminder to our listeners, it's the, the, his own commentary or elaboration on the first three Sandarbhas of the Bhagavata Sandarbha or the Shastra Sandarbha.

So that's where he elaborates on the, the basic things that he lays out in Tatva Sandarbha about the Pramanas. He elaborates a lot on the detailed aspects of that. And this has been translated very, very nicely by Gopi Pran and Dhanaprabhu in very clear terms that everyone can understand.

So then, so the question is, how do we know that the scriptures claim to divine descent is true? Because, so, so, I mean, the typical answer is, well, because we trust the, well, okay, let's put it like this. There are, in order to understand the reliability of any source of knowledge, you have to use multiple, you have to use multiple ways of assessing that reliability. And the more ways in which you can assess that reliability, and they come out showing reliability, the more confident you can be.

So let me give you a non-Shastric example. When I teach my students in the university, one of the things I teach them is to assess the reliability of the sources that they are using. Because too often our tendency in our internet world is we have a question, we type it into Google, and Google highlights often an answer at the top, or gives you several sources in the first 10 hits, and we click on them and we accept them as reliable.

But a big part of academic education and of proper training is to question the reliability of the sources you are given, especially in the information age. So I ask them to look at multiple factors in assessing reliability. One is going to be the author, right? Is the author someone who has a proper qualification in the subject matter? Do they, have they received training in that area? Are they respected by other scholars in that area, or are they an outlier, right? Outliers can be sometimes useful, but one has to be very careful, right? Are they respected by their community of scholars, the community of scholarship? The second thing I ask them to look at is the place of publication.

Who has published this work and therefore has lent their credibility to the subject matter? I ask them to look at their use of prior sources. Who are they citing for their authority in their writing? Are they claiming that they came up with this overnight in their own mind or in their own brilliance, or are they basing it on prior research that has come up? And then, so like this, I ask them to assess multiple factors. The one more I would add to your list is its reception by the community of scholars in terms of reliability.

So author, place of publication, citation of prior sources, and its reception by the community of scholars. So in this way, it's not one factor, but multiple factors that give us confidence, because the qualifications of the author are, of course, very important. But if we rely exclusively on that, there's a chance that we can be fooled, right? Because people get all kinds of PhDs by mail.

You just have to pay some money, and a company will send you a certificate saying you have a PhD. So technically, you could be fooled completely in that area. But any one of these aspects can be forged.

But when you put them all together, then the likelihood of reliability increases significantly. So this is the logic that we want to apply for the Pramanas as well, but also particularly for Shabda. If Shabda is, if we think of Shabda in terms of a published paper, right, then we ask ourselves, okay, what are the various, actually, from this list, one, two, three, four, the fifth item that I want to add to it is that it actually has to make sense to you, right? So the reader has to go through it, and it has to make sense to them.

If the person is mad, then there's no, there's no, like, then it becomes highly questionable. If you cannot follow it, if it's incomprehensible, if it's crazy, that kind of thing. So when we look at Shabda, if we think of Shabda with this analogy, as a published paper, a published book, and we're trying to assess this reliability, then the first thing that the Shastras ask us to do, and the Acharyas ask us to do, is to understand the qualifications of the author.

Then we want to see its origins. When was it produced? How was it produced? Who was the publisher? Of course, publishers didn't exist back then, but similar circumstances, as in who is putting it out there? This is presented by Vyasadeva, or is it presented by others? Then how is it, how is it in Parampara? How is it citing prior sources, right? Even Krishna in Bhagavad Gita says, according to Vedanta Shruti, this is said, right? So he's, he's using the citation, he's relying on the strength of Parampara to substantiate his words, even though he doesn't need to, as the Supreme Lord. But that is a very important element.

Then how has it been received by previous Acharyas and by the community of Sadhus? This is crucial also. Has, have other learned Sadhus and teachers and pure devotees looked at the Pramana and said, yes, this is good. And this is valuable.

And then the final element is, does it make sense? Is it self-evident truth? And this is the one that I want to highlight. So each one of these five, basically, you could bring down for in relation to Shabda. We could add others also.

This is not a comprehensive list. We can add others. But the last one is what Jiva Goswami highlights in his Sarva Samvadini.

He says that the nature of Shabda, of true, of pure Shabda, is that it is immediately evident to human experience and comprehension. It is, in Sanskrit, this is called Svata Pramana, right? It's, it's immediately clear to, yes, this is the truth. And the example he gives is a beautiful story that is given by, originally by Sripad Shankaracharya, actually, which is the famous story of the 10th.

You are the 10th. You know this story, Prabhu? Should I tell it? You are the 10th. You can repeat it, I think.

Yes, yes. So it's, so basically there's, there's a Guru and his nine disciples. Who are crossing a river.

And it's a dangerous river with heavily, the flow is very swift. And so the Guru says to the, he says to the disciples that let us cross carefully and make sure all of us make it to the other side. So they swim across and then when they get to the other side, the spiritual master, he says, okay, there were 10 of us.

Can one of you count, please, to make sure we are here? And the disciple counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. And he says, Gurudev, there's one missing. And the next disciple cries, counts. And he counts also nine.

And he says, yes, my God brother is correct. And they all begin crying that we have lost one God brother in the river. And then the Guru steps in.

He says, you are fools. You should, you have forgotten to count yourself. You are the 10th, right? And as soon as he says, yes, you are the 10th, then it's immediately clear to their own understanding.

At that point, the disciple who was counting, he says, oh, yeah, of course, I forgot to count myself, that I am the 10th. Now, there's no evidence needed for this. At this point, it would be foolish for the disciple to say, Gurudev, can you provide evidence that I am the 10th? No.

But it is immediately apparent to human apprehension. And the example is given like the sun. This is given by Prabhupada often.

The sun reveals everything. And it also reveals itself. It is svata pramana.

It is self-evident truth. It's self-illuminating. So Jiva Goswami gives this story of the 10th as an example of how shabda is independent.

It's an independent pramana because it is self-evident. And here again, I want to point out the importance of human apprehension, human comprehension, human experience in validifying shabda. That the nature of shabda is that it immediately becomes clear, or sometimes with a little bit of explanation, it becomes clear to the apprehender, right? So this fifth element of sensibility is very important as well.

Now, if you take all of these different aspects and you put them together, and they all point to this source's reliability, then you can be fairly sure. Can you still be fooled even when all of these point in the right direction? Yes, of course. It is possible at any point because we human beings are subject to make mistakes and to be illusioned.

That's our nature. So we can still be fooled even with all these five. And people are.

In the academic world, people forge sources that have all these characteristics, and they're still fooled. So it is possible, even with all these criteria present, for us to be misled. And this has happened in history.

This is why Krishna says yoga nashta parantapa. But the chances of it become very minimal. You're basically increasing the probability of reliability through a multi-pronged process of verifying the authenticity of a shabda.

You know, this is very rational and persuasive at one level. It's one quick point. The way I have heard it before is exactly the opposite.

That it does not, it is self-authoritative. It does not require any other authority to explain. And if we consider that scripture is talking about transcendental subject matters, then by their very domain of existence of that knowledge that is beyond sensory perception.

So how can something which is inherently beyond sensory perception be self-evident to sensory perception? No, no, no, they're not self-evident to sensory perception. They, the shabda is beyond sensory perception, but it's not beyond our ability to comprehend or experience. Otherwise, what would be the point of shabda? If shabda was beyond our ability to comprehend or to experience, then that shabda for practical purposes would be useless to human beings.

Point is shabda is directly evident to us, us meaning ourselves, the atma, the soul, and to some extent our mind and senses, but it is not directly evident to our sensory perception. And this is why it is called shabda. Just like the, okay, so this is an important point because shabda, swatha pramana, I think this is a reason you bring up that people misunderstand swatha pramana and they equate swatha pramana as blind following.

That swatha pramana means that it is independent and therefore it should be accepted blindly with no questioning because it is its own pramana. But this is not how swatha pramana is understood by the acharyas or in Vedanta. Swatha pramana means that it establishes its own validity so that to us, it becomes clear that it is truth, right? That it is, it immediately becomes self-evident.

And again, both examples make this clear. Jiva Goswami's example of the 10th and also Prabhupada's example of the sun. It is not that someone is telling us that there is a black hole and now you have to accept it.

That's swatha pramana. You cannot perceive it, but you have to accept it. It is swatha pramana because it is immediately clear once it is pointed out to you.

Once you see it, it becomes immediately clear. You understand its truth. And a wonderful example of this is the reality of consciousness, right? Consciousness is the fundamental element of swatha pramana.

You cannot perceive consciousness through any sensory perception of any kind. It is beyond that. You can perceive the heart.

You can perceive the brains. You can perceive all kinds of things, but you cannot use an instrument to measure consciousness. And yet, when the reality of consciousness is pointed out by the guru, aham brahmasmi, right? You are transcendental spirit.

You are consciousness. You are the atma. It becomes immediately clear to the sincere listener, right? It becomes self-evident.

That is swatha pramana. It is not that swatha pramana means it will never be evident to you. You just have to accept blindly.

That is a misunderstanding of swatha pramana. Good point about reality of consciousness. This consciousness is the basis by which we know everything.

Because the consciousness is not known by sensory perception. But sensory perception is actually known through consciousness. There would not be any perception at all through senses also.

Now, two points over here. First is that in the Christian tradition, I have read there are two categories. There is rational theology and there is a revelational theology.

That some aspects of, say, for example, the existence of God can be inferred. But beyond that specifics, there are many specifics which cannot be inferred. There is more of a revelation theology.

So, now the existence of consciousness itself, we could say, can be inferred. But further spiritual details, say, for example, God is a bluish black cowherd boy who plays a peacock, who plays a flute, and wears a peacock feather. That is not something which can be, it's not exactly swatha pramana.

In fact, Shastra Yonitvat in the Vedanta Sutra says the idea is that it is only by Shastra Brahma can be known. That it cannot be known by Pratyekshana. That's actually one way in which that verse is understood.

That the source of everything, Janmadya Syeta, it can be understood only through Shastra. Or maybe primarily through Shastra. You can elaborate on that.

But it's not that everything in Shabda is self-evident. So, is it that there is some differentiation, there are some principles which are self-evident and then specifics, they are more a matter of inference based on that. Because again, like the earlier lines of authority that we use, it is when we are evaluating a particular author's writings.

Now, we can see how much it makes sense to me. But that doesn't mean that if everything makes immediate sense, then what is the point of learning? We don't have anything to learn from that person. Exactly.

Very nice point, Prabhu. Very nice point. So, svata pramana, some things are immediately svata pramana, we can say.

But also, we can push that further and say that everything is svata pramana in due course. So, for example, for the Vaishnav who is seeing Krishna, saksha, then there is no external evidence needed for Krishna's existence. Krishna is svata pramana because he is there.

Antar bahir avasthitam. He's right there in the… So, for Prahlad, the Lord's existence was svata pramana. Hiranyakashyapu asked him, is your Lord here in this pillar? For Hiranyakashyapu, it was a matter of evidence, right? Let me break the pillar and see if the Lord is actually in the pillar.

But for Prahlad, it was svata pramana. It was immediately evident. No external evidence was needed that the Lord is in the pillar.

He looks at the pillar and the Lord is there. In other words, back to our definition of svata pramana, that the fact of it was immediately available to his apprehension, to his comprehension, immediately. Just like you are the tenth.

It was immediately clear. But for Hiranyakashyapu, it was not svata pramana. So, this is also the point that svata pramana, everything in shabda is svata pramana, but perhaps not immediately.

Some things like the reality of consciousness can be immediately svata pramana, even for the average person. And Prabhupada would begin in his lectures by this point. You are not this body, you are the soul.

Because this is svata pramana even for the average thoughtful person. But other things take time. Now, the question here comes up.

The foothold is that if something is svata pramana for you and not for me. So, svata pramana, it does not do away with the need for shraddha. Shraddha is still required because some things may be self-evident, but some things are not.

There is something for me to build the foundation of my faith on. But still, faith is like a leap into the unknown to some extent. Either the faith is a leap into the unknown, and I agree, to some extent it is.

But also shraddha or faith is basically those various, those five characteristics that we put up there, right? It is the, in our notes, it is the composite of that. What is shraddha except reliance on other authorities who have better understanding? Like, just like I am reading an article, and like you said, it may not be sensible to me immediately. It may be, in fact, quite confusing.

But I have trust that because my professor has assigned this article, or because many scholars regard this as a seminal piece of writing, therefore, I must struggle through it, understand it until it becomes sensible for me, right? So what is that? But placing my shraddha in the community of scholars or teachers or gurus who have seen value in that piece of shraddha. So shraddha on one level is simply a composite. It is a conglomeration of all those factors that we put up, which is our trust in the author and the qualifications of the author.

Our trust in the community of teachers who accept this as reliable. Our trust in the origin, the publisher, the source of this knowledge, right? All of these things put together comprise our shraddha. And if you start pulling away one of these, one after another, and the author turns out to be unreliable, the community turns out to be fools, all of that, then eventually our shraddha will crumble.

It should crumble. And if it doesn't crumble, then it means it is blind faith, which is not actually shraddha. Shraddha is not blind faith, right? So in some sense, yes, the sensibility may be unknown.

That may be a leap. But the other factors have to be there to ground it. Otherwise, then just a leap into the unknown might lead us into a ditch.

Yeah. So then when we say shraddha, it is not necessarily a fixed corpus of books. Again, I'm taking Christian examples because I think this field has been researched.

In different Christian denominations, there are different books which are included in the Bible. Some books are included as the Bible and some are not included. There are some which are core, which everybody includes.

So there won't be an overarching, universally accepted definition of shraddha by all traditions. Or is there? No, no, every collection of shraddha, the scriptural canon, has to be specific to the community which adheres to it. This is why when you begin any kind of discussion in Vedic culture, then you always begin by establishing a shared pramana.

What are your pramanas? What are mine? Because unless there's an agreement on pramanas, we will be talking past each other, right? So this is why, you know, in the Chand Kazi Leela, Prabhupada mentions, he says that when the Muslims are quoting from their Koran, then their arguments are authorised. And when we are quoting from the Vedas, then our arguments are authorised. We have to have a proper pramana, shraddha pramana, to base it on.

Now, every community feels that their pramana is universally applicable. That's a fact, right? We feel the Vedas are universally applicable. The Christians feel the Bible is universally applicable.

But in practise, the shraddha is really dependent upon, or is not dependent, it's invested in a particular group, a particular collection of works that are known as the scriptural canon, or the shraddha pramana for that community. And Prabhupada makes it clear that when that shraddha pramana is accepted in a particular community, then their arguments are authorised. Now, we can question each other's pramanas for validity.

That is our right. But within each community, there are certain pramanas that will be universally accepted by that tradition. But the Vedas, for example, are accepted as pramana by all traditions.

At least those traditions are considered as astic. Yes, exactly. So the Vedas have the widest acceptance within India, within the Indic traditions, but still not universal, right? But they have the widest acceptance, as you said, amongst the astika, not the nastika traditions.

And then within that, you can have, then there become more specific shraddha pramana that are accepted more narrowly. So, for example, one community may accept the Shiva Purana as shraddha pramana, and another community may not accept. For us, Shrimad Bhagavatam is apourushaya, right? Jiva Goswami makes this clear.

It is shraddha pramana of the highest category, whereas for other sampradayas, non-Vaishnav sampradayas in particular, Bhagavatam may be part of pramana, shraddha pramana, but it will not be apourushaya. It's in the category of human-authored texts that are generally reliable, but don't carry the absolute reliability of the Vedas, whereas Jiva Goswami makes it clear that Bhagavatam has the absolute reliability of the Vedas. So pramanas are going to be assessed, shraddha pramana is going to be assessed differently by different communities of teachers and different sampradayas.

This also brings in, while we could actually say that the various traditions are pointing to the same ultimate truth, the fact that they have different sources of authority and then they draw different inferences from the teaching of those sources of authority, that does bring in a certain level of almost irreducible subjectivity to the perception of reality. So when we say that, what is that Rig Vedic saying, ekam satvik prabhavodavadanti, that one truth is known by multiple names. So we can say that a principle applies not just to names, that can also apply to broader perceptions of reality also.

Yes, and I would, I agree, Prabhu, and I would modify that just slightly by saying it's not irreducible subjectivity, but we might say there are different areas of knowledge and different ways of understanding that truth. One nice example I like to give in this regard, this ekam sat idea, is that it is often said that in the beginning of the creation, Lord Shiva did his dance with the damaru, and this dance was heard by three different stages. Patanjali heard it and he listened to the dance and he understood the poses and the understanding of yoga sutras, and the Bharata Muni heard it and he heard the rhythms and notes of the Natya Shastra, and the third one I think is Panini, he heard it and he heard the letters of the alphabet, the aksharas, from which he created the Ashtadhyay, the Sanskrit grammar.

So that same truth is accessed in different ways by different stages over time. This is not to say that every apprehension of every understanding of the shabda is correct. There's also incorrect understandings that are misapprehensions of that reality, and to clarify those misapprehensions, there's been a long tradition of shastrata, the debate between acharyas of different sampradayas, where they debate the validity of their pramanas as well as the conclusions that they can draw from those pramanas.

The debates between the Vedanta acharyas are especially robust because they have a shared set of pramanas, so they don't have to discuss that first. The pramanas are already accepted, the prasthanatrayi, and then they can discuss what the pramanas are actually concluding. When there's debate outside of the Vedantic circle, then you have to begin even with the discussion of the pramanas themselves.

Are the Vedas reliable or not as forms of authority? Interesting one. I think there could also be different ways of understanding. It's also evolutionary.

There could also be evolution in understanding. The Bhagavatam says that when Brahmaji heard the Vedas for the first time, he thought they were teaching karma marga. Then he heard it for the second time, he thought it was jnana marga.

And then he read it for the third time, then he understood it was bhakti. So there could also be evolution in that person's understanding also. So, if there are different ways of understanding, not just the one ultimate reality, but even we're not talking about ontology, we're talking about epistemology over here, that there could be different understandings of what are the ways to understand, or different understandings of the tools with which we are going to understand the books.

Then, in one sense, there is never going to be one conclusive understanding ever. Because if there's no agreement on the tools for knowing, how would you ever be able to arrive at one conclusive understanding? Or will it be that something like different tools would be used for arriving at, like as for establishing siddhanta. So, for example, Mahaprabhu would use scripture to debate with his astic traditions.

And then he would use logic tarka to deal with debating those who are non-Astic traditions. So, sometimes we may have to use the appropriate source of knowledge or appropriate source of knowing for establishing the truth in particular circles. Like when you quoted that Mahaprabhu and Jankazi both using their own scriptures, wouldn't that itself lead to talking past each other? Because if each person doesn't accept their other source of authority, then would Naptakshari Angavan become like a shared source of authority for everyone? Or how would that kind of logjam be avoided? You're absolutely right.

Unless there's a shared pramanas, there's going to be talking past each other. And therefore, in the situation where Shabda Pramana cannot be shared, not be mutually accepted, say when we're doing interfaith dialogue, then it's unlikely that they are going to accept our pramanas and we're going to accept theirs in terms of Shabda Pramana. Then often the realm of dialogue happens to be Pratyaksha and Anuman.

And this doesn't need to be superficial, because remember, the devotee's perception, understanding, experience of Krishna is also Pratyaksha. And this can become a very rich location for dialogue. Because we often find, I mean, my own experience is that when people of faith from different traditions speak about their direct apprehension of God, we find many shared commonalities that are present there.

As well as commonalities within the pramanas themselves, right, that are apprehensible to Anuman, to logic. Your shastra also restricts the animal slaughter. My shastra also restricts.

So this is understanding validity through Anumana, right? We may not accept each other's pramanas, but we recognise that within the pramanas, there are logical elements or experiential elements or devotional elements that are shared. And that point to the same ultimate reality. And that's where I think dialogue becomes truly fruitful and possible when we recognise that this person, as Bhaktivinoda Thakur said so nicely, that this person is perceiving my own Lord in a different way.

And my own appreciation for my Lord has become enriched by seeing him manifest in this unique way in this person's tradition. So you recognise the same reality, but perceived and understood differently in a different tradition. And that avoids the talking past each other element.

Despite the fact that we don't share the same pramanas from a formal textual perspective. So you could say here there is something like an experience of the divine that is sensed. Would that be, for example, Sanatan Goswami in the Brihad Bhagavatam also talks about Anubhava as one of the pramanas, experience.

Would that, by that experience, I don't think we are referring to pratyaksha. How does that fall in, he's talking, I think he's talking about the story of the Gopakumar. The Gopakumar goes to the spiritual world, goes to various levels in the spiritual world, Vaikuntha, Ayodhya, Dwarka, then comes back to earth, then goes to the earthly Vrindavan and attains the spiritual Vrindavan.

So there Anubhava is, Anubhava is considered as a key marker, key aid in direction finding. So where does, is that what something you are referring, something similar to what you are referring to here? Yes, yes, Prabhu. So, so there's actually often given a list of 10 pramanas and I don't know the 10 off the top of my head, but Anubhava is one of them.

Aitihya or tradition, a customary tradition is also one of these pramanas and so on. And, and Jiva Goswami reduces these 10 into the large, larger three categories of Shabda, Pratyaksha and Anubhava. So when I speak of Pratyaksha, I'm including Anubhava in it also.

And when I speak of Shabda, I'm including Aitihya in it also. So we can, we can more, we can separate these out more precisely if we had the, the, the information here, but we could divide them out. But basically all the different means of knowing that are useful and valid, the Vedantas, they reduce to these three.

Okay. But I'm a little bit conscious of our time, Prabhu. Should we? I think we need to go ahead.

There are multiple questions that may keep coming up, but this is a very reasonable foundational clarity we have come to. I think one key question would be, do you want to talk about where Shabda and Pratyaksha seem to contradict? Yes. Okay.

Yes. I definitely want to get to that here. When Bhaskara Thakur talks about it, addresses this in his essay on the Bhagwat, he talks about two main things, chronology and cosmology, specifically with respect to the Bhagavatam.

So the dates given in the Bhagavatam for particular kings and particular yugas that can seem almost unbelievable. And the cosmology and the specific dimensions. So I think chronology is important, but that is the issue which we have discussed in our very first podcast on the dating of scriptures.

And why dating should be considered? Is it that important in our tradition when we're talking about timeless principles? So maybe we can focus on cosmology. Is that okay? That's true. Yes.

Yes. Very nice. So what happens when Pratyaksha and Shabda contradict? So let me begin by saying that Jiva Goswami, he says that when scripture, Shastra speaks of the physical domain, then it has several functions.

In other words, when Pratyaksha and Shabda interact with each other, they meet each other. There's three things he says that can happen from a faithful perspective. One is that Shastra provides the foundation for good Anumana, right? So by this, I mean, you know where to begin your reasoning or where to end your reasoning or in what direction to move your reasoning.

Because Anumana without direction can become extreme, very kind of all over the place, very misdirected and very incoherent, right? It's not properly directed. So he says the first thing is that Shabda provides a foundation for good Anumana, for good inference, good logic. Second, Shabda can be supported by Pratyaksha, right? So we Shastra says X, Shastra says that the Prabhupada gives the example of the stool of all animals is impure, but the stool of the cow is pure.

So this is a statement by Shastra about something in this physical world, but we can support it by Pratyaksha. Apparently, there's been studies done showing that cow dung has antiseptic properties, and of course it has fertilising properties and so on. So in this case, Pratyaksha supports Shabda.

And then the third instance is the one that we are primarily interested in. These first two are rather easy. The third one is when Shabda overrules Pratyaksha and the other Pramanas.

Okay, so that is the one that we are particularly concerned with, is what happens when there's a direct contradiction. So Jiva Goswami addresses this actually quite directly. What happens when the scriptures seem implausible from a physical standpoint? So in order to explain how Jiva Goswami addresses this, let me first point out that for our listeners that there are two types of meaning explanation.

Actually, there's more, but there's two for our purposes. Vedantists agree that there are literal meaning of scripture and indirect meaning, indirect interpretation. So one is called the Mokhya Vritti or the sometimes called Rudhi also, the direct meaning of a passage, the literal meaning.

And then there is the indirect interpretation called Lakshana. When in general, the principle of interpretation is that we should always begin with the Mokhya Vritti, with the direct interpretation. And when that direct interpretation is not plausible, then we can move to the indirect interpretation.

Okay, and the various Vedantists, they explain that when the primary meaning of the direct meaning is obstructed, means it does not make sense in relation to the other words of the sentence, the other, the larger paragraph or chapter or the text, or when it does not make sense in relation to what we know about this world. These are the two situations when a meaning is badha, it is obstructed, which can prompt going from a direct to an indirect meaning. Okay, so when the direct meaning is implausible, namely badha, namely, when it does not make sense within its own text, right, within its own context, and then secondly, when it is doesn't make sense in relation to our experience of the world, then we have to go to the indirect meaning.

That indirect meaning needs to be tad yoga, which means it must be connected with the primary sense. The indirect meaning cannot be off the wall. It cannot be just a brilliant twist of our imagination.

The secondary meaning, although it is indirect, it must be connected to the direct meaning in a regular and obvious way. There should be linguistic and conceptual similarities between them. What do you mean by linguistic similarities? It should be a reasonable secondary reading.

Is that what you are trying to say? It has to be connected to the primary meaning, right? So, the indirect metaphorical or indirect understanding cannot be just completely disconnected from the original primary meaning that did not work. So, the classic example of this is in interpretation is the famous Gangayam Ghosha, right, the village on the Ganges. So, the village on the Ganga, the primary meaning is badha, it's obstructed because it does not match with our experience.

Our experience is that human habitation cannot exist on the flow of the river, Ganga Pravahe, that doesn't make any sense. Therefore, Ganga Tate, we have to add the idea of Tata, of the shore, and that meaning is tad yoga, it's connected to the first meaning. In other words, it's clearly related to the idea of a village on the Ganga.

I'm saying instead of in the middle of the Ganga, it's on the edge of the Ganga. In other words, I cannot come up with a new meaning that says, actually, the Ganga refers to the flow of the heart and our connection to the divine. And therefore, Gangayam Ghosha means a village that is connected to my heart.

That's no, it's not tad yoga, it's not connected to the primary meaning. It's too much out of the ordinary, right? Okay, so this is the foundation of understanding to understand what Jiva Goswami then explains. So what does he say? He says, first of all, it is entirely possible for Shabda and Pratyaksha, or Shabda and Anuman to conflict with each other.

In such a situation of conflict, Shabda is always supreme, it overrules the others. But at the same time, we have to make sense of Shabda with our own minds and experience, right? We have to be able to understand it and appreciate it. So here's the examples that he gives of Shabda conflicting with Pratyaksha.

Okay, and I think these examples will illuminate. So, Shabda can conflict with Pratyaksha and Shabda is always supreme in such a situation. But the question then occurs is how do we understand that Shabda, that scriptural statement that is conflicting with our experience? And here is where Jiva Goswami's examples are brilliant.

He says, he gives the example of Gangayam Bhosha, village on the Ganga. He gives the example in the Vedas, which say that the waters spoke, right? The Jala, the water spoke. Another example he gives is the Vedas saying that the stones float.

In each of these, he says, even though it conflicts with our immediate experience, we can make sense of the meaning of these statements in relation to our experience in the following way. He says, in the first instance, Gangayam Bhosha is the idea of a human habitation is implausible. Therefore, we add Gangayam Tate on the banks of the Ganga.

In the second instance of the water spoke, he says, our observation is that water doesn't normally speak, right? And therefore, this prompts the reinterpretation by Jiva Goswami that this refers to the demigod presiding over water as speaking. Okay. In the third instance, he says, again, the idea that stones can float is unreasonable in typical human experience.

But, he says, the scriptures praise the stones by saying the stones float in order to increase the potency of the stones that are used in a particular ritual. Now, this is from Mimamsa. That this is by increasing the Shakti of the stones by praising them for the purpose of the performance in a particular ritual.

This is a functionalist explanation. Functionalist interpretation of this statement. And Jiva Goswami actually refers to the Ramayana story in this regard.

That the Shakti of the stones can be increased. But just like when they built the bridge, the Vanaras built the bridge across the ocean for Lord Ramachandra. So, let me point out here that in the water spoke example, Jiva Goswami is explaining the meaning by adding one element.

Namely, the Devas. Just like we added the bank of the Ganga, right? Which was not present in the original statement. In order to explain how something that is implausible to human experience can in fact become plausible.

And the stone float, he offers a functionalist interpretation in order to explain why the scriptures say something that is seemingly beyond or contradictory to human experience. But here's the key point. Every one of these explanations is prompted by an attempt to make it reasonable to Pratyaksha, right? It's prompted by an attempt to reconcile with an opposing Pratyaksha.

While respecting the primary meaning of the passage. So, Jiva Goswami is not saying that stones float. Here the stones refer to the human capacity to, you know, the fact that we are like stones and the Lord can lift us up by his power.

So, this stone is a metaphorical way of referring to the human being. He's not saying something like that. He's not saying that the water spoke is referring to our inner voice.

Because our inner, our heart flows like water. Therefore, our inner voice speaks. He's not saying like this.

Every interpretation is directly connected to the primary meaning. He's not going way off into Never Neverland, right? Into some metaphorical reality. No, it's closely connected to the primary meaning.

But it is prompting a reinterpretation in order to respect our direct perception. Let me just emphasise one last thing, which is to say. So, I was thinking that when you're speaking these at one level, the principles, the examples might seem a bit trivial.

This is a simple example. I mean, it's a straightforward understanding for everybody knows who has read Shastra. But the last point that you made was that the attempt in all of these, the underlying driving principle is to make Shabda intelligible to our prateksha Hanuman.

To that, I think that brings a certain level of responsibility to every generation in the tradition. Because we could say that knowledge of the world is evolving. And then in the, and this will bring us to a big subject, as the knowledge of the world evolves, then in the light of that evolving knowledge, how is knowledge revealed in scripture to be seen? And making scripture intelligible to a contemporary generation would become the responsibility of that contemporary generation's scholars or teachers.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. And this is a very important problem, not just Vedic principle. It's a Vaishnav principle specifically, because unlike some other Vedanta schools, we regard this world to be true, to be Satyam, to be real.

We do not say it's Mithya, right? We don't say it's false. We don't say it's Vyavaharika only. We say it is actually real because it's the Lord Shakti.

So by suffocating prateksha and our ability to understand it, we are disrespecting our own philosophy significantly. In fact, when our Acharyas, specifically when Jiva Goswami, when they argue against Mayavada philosophy, one of the foundational arguments they make is that it contradicts our direct experience. Because you are saying that this world is not real, it's not substantial, it's only temporarily real, it's not Vyavaharika.

But this contradicts our direct perception. Our perception is that this world is real and these differences are real. So by saying that you are me and I am you, or by saying that the world is insubstantial, you are going against the foundational experience of human beings, their direct perception.

And therefore, such a philosophy, however brilliant it may be on the level of interpretation, it cannot be true because it contradicts fundamental human experience. And this relies on our conviction that this world is true. It's Satya.

It's not false. It's not fake. And so this respect for Pratyaksha, let me emphasise, is a distinctly Vaishnav imperative.

It is not simply us trying to sell out or become weak in the face of science. It's not simply a, you know, like a wishy-washy watered-down idea. So this is the heart of, it's one of the most important aspects of our philosophy that distinguishes us from Mayavad, right, is the Acharya's insistence that our experience of the world has to be taken seriously.

So I suspect that we may have to have one more session now. This has been quite demanding as well as illuminating. But this last point which you mentioned about our experience of our senses, our experience of the world being relied on, I would say it is, in one sense, again foundational to bhakti because we constantly use our senses.

We don't consider our senses to be maya. In bhakti itself, we use our senses. So just as our senses can be used to perceive Krishna in the sense of his deities, his holy name, so senses can also be used to perceive Krishna in this world, to understand Krishna's presence in the realities of this world also to some extent.

Another point I was thinking that within our tradition, time is also considered to be divine. So we are not just adjusting according to time, you know, we are also trying to attune ourselves to how Krishna is revealing wisdom through time. Because the changes of the world and whatever results from the changes of the world is not just completely random.

It is also God acting through the agency of time in the world. So it's not just adjusting to time, it's adjusting to Krishna who is manifesting through time. Both points are beautifully stated, Prabhu.

I really, really appreciate it. Especially this point about bhakti not rejecting the senses. How many times does Prabhupada make that point? What will repression accomplish? Over and over and over again.

That these senses are so valuable for engagement in bhakti and not merely stepping stones to be rejected. They have to be transformed and we will always have senses now and in the spiritual world. So our pratyaksha is never useless, right? It's always valid.

I think one example of this applied. The water spoke, the stones float. I think one example of this applied in our current context that concerns devotees today is, I think, when we discuss these elements of cosmology that you were mentioning, right? That cosmology can often, the Bhagavatam's cosmology can contradict on the surface, apparently, very significantly with a what we actually perceive up in the sky.

By our own senses and be what modern science tells us through its usage of scientific calculations, telescopes and things of that nature, right? It can seem like it's an affront to both our immediate perception and the extended perception of the scientific community pratyaksha. But this is where I think the work of scholars and devotees like Sadaputta Prabhu are so valuable. Right? Like Sadaputta Prabhu's, for example, explanation of the relative distances of the sun and the moon, as well as the plane of the Bhumandala that he gives as the plane of the solar system.

I find them so wonderful because they allow me to understand what the Bhagavatam is saying and also make sense of it in terms of human perception. Right? In terms of our ability to look up into the sky and to understand things. This is an excellent example of how the two are properly respected in the mood of Shri Rajiv Goswami.

Of course, Sadaputta Prabhu himself was clear that his conclusions were tentative. He was not presenting it as the absolute truth. He gave multiple models for making sense of the Bhagavatam's cosmology in relation to scientific perception, not just scientific perception, in relation to the perception even of the rishis in terms of the sky.

He gave multiple models that are there. But still, I find that kind of attempt to be very laudable and very reasonable. And of course, it was greatly desired by Shila Prabhupada also in the creation.

In the Shila Prabhupada's letter to when the planetary was being constructed, he said, you need to be able to explain the phases of the moon, you need to be able to explain eclipses, seasons. So basically, what the Bhagavatam cosmology is describing, Prabhupada also wanted to make it intelligible in terms of our sensory experience, especially in terms of some key parameters that are used in empirical observation of course, or that are empirical effects of cosmological structures or systems. Yes.

So now the specifics of how, which aspects of Shabda can be made intelligible to perception, that may be, like you mentioned, Sadavudra's book, that is a formidable intellectual task, and he's done it. He was equal to it. But it's a, it's a significant responsibility.

And probably we could say that our tradition and specifically our movement is relatively young right now. Just because we don't have questions which have been answered does not necessarily mean that the questions have no answers. And doesn't mean that we have to either give up Shabda or we have to give up perception.

Is it, maybe this is the last question we could discuss that sometimes they say that, as devotees, we can suspend judgement as sadhakas. No, okay, I don't know how this makes sense. So I can't say that I accept it.

But I don't say that I reject it either also. This is something which we have to figure out. And suspending judgement is something which we do in various areas of life.

A student who starts studying quantum physics, hardly anything makes sense initially. But okay, I'll suspend judgement about a theoretical model. Mathematics seems to make, seems to be working.

Let me focus on that. So is there something within the tradition to substantiate this idea of suspending judgement? Now, the concept of achintyatva is there, but I don't think that's the relevant concept here. Maybe we could have a separate session on what achintya means and what it doesn't mean.

But the idea of suspending judgement, would you say that that's one way of approaching where we cannot immediately reconcile, we cannot make sense of shabda in terms of patyaksha? I mean, suspending judgement is the very heart of shraddha, right? If everything made sense, then, and we were able to explain everything, then we would have no need for shabda, for shraddha. We would just have anuman only, because everything was making sense to our logic. But the idea that we have to, or we'd only have patyaksha.

Patyaksha and anuman would suffice, in other words. But the heart of shraddha is our ability to say that, although I understand that shabda, patyaksha, and anuman all come to the same point in their perfection. This comes back to the beginnings of our discussion last time.

They're all pointing to the same reality. And in their ultimate sense, they're all three are perfect. Patyaksha is perfect, as vaidusha, patyaksha.

Anuman is perfect, in terms of the logic that helps us understand reality. And shabda is perfect, as revealed knowledge from the Lord. But given my own limitations of understanding, I cannot understand them fully.

Therefore, I'm going to suspend judgement until that point when it is revealed, or I'm able to understand, right? That's the very heart of shraddha. Without that, there's no need even for shraddha, right? So suspending judgement is the very heart of what we do as devotees. And when it comes to various, I mean, I can say from a personal perspective, when it comes to cosmology and things of that nature, not being a scientist and not having the time, capacity, energy to study cosmology from a highly technical perspective, there's a lot of suspending judgement that I do when it comes to cosmology, right? But as much as I need to keep my shraddha, I take.

And so, for example, reading sections of Vedic cosmography and astronomy by Sadaputta Puru. This is as much as I need for me to understand. Yes, this is reasonable.

It's reliable, right? I can accept it. I want to make just one last point on this matter, which is to say that I think we have to recognise that throughout our entire Vaishnava and Vedic history, there has never been one Acharya who has taken the cosmology of the Puranas or of the Vedas or Bhagavatam, described it, closed their eyes and said, I will not look up into the sky because I accept it fully on truth, on shraddha. No, our predecessor Acharyas and scientists and astrologers were incredible observers of our cosmos.

They measured the movements of the planets. They measured the locations of the stars. They observed, they predicted eclipses with exceeding accuracy.

They timed the rising and setting of the sun. All of these things they did. We know this because astrology requires all of these calculations, right? So we know that ancient Vedic astronomy was very advanced and they were very careful observers of this world.

And yet they held faith in the Shastras at the same time. My point is, no one asks us to have faith in the Shastras to the exclusion of the other Pramanas. No, throughout our history, we see a robust dialogue between the Pramanas of the Acharyas making sense of the Shastras and looking up into the sky and making sense of what they see and bringing those two things together, right? And when you can't bring the two things together, still they don't think that they have to choose between one of them.

Exactly. For example, I think Chakravartipada, Krishna Chakravartipada talks about the horoscope of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and of Krishna. And that horoscope is entirely described based on the Jyotish Shastra.

And the Jyotish Shastra's cosmology is not so easy to reconcile with the Bhagavatam's cosmology. So he's commenting on the Bhagavatam, he's commenting on the cosmology section of the Bhagavatam also. But when he has to do astrology, he does use the Jyotish Shastra, not the Bhagavatam.

So sometimes, what is that saying? You know, trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. So sometimes we may think that being faithful to Shastra requires a level of rejection of a picture that has not been demanded by the tradition. Exactly, exactly.

This is very well put, Prabhu. This is beautifully put, what you just said. That sometimes we think that an acceptance of Shabda requires a rejection of the other Pramanas that has not been demanded by our tradition, not been demonstrated by our tradition either.

But somehow we demand it of ourselves, right? And I think we are being unfair to ourselves. The only people we are harming are ourselves. Because the tradition has a dialogical model of the Pramanas.

And that, I think, is key to keep in mind. That dialogue between the Pramanas may not always be perfect, right? There may be conflicts. There may be areas you don't understand.

But no one is dumping one Pramana in favour of the others. They're always in dialogue with each other. And whatever aspect of the dialogue is most important to you, you investigate that thoroughly, right? So if cosmology is your area where that dialogue is most difficult, then please investigate that dialogue between Pratyaksha, Anuman, and Shabda in relation to cosmology.

For me, this is not my area of angst. It's not my area of concern. I appreciate it.

And I get into it a little bit, as much as I need. But I only need a little bit. My area of dialogue between the Pramanas has to do with history, and dating, and texts, like we discussed in previous podcasts.

So I get deep into that. But some of my fellow Vaishnav scholars will get deep into the area of cosmology. That is the area where the dialogue is important for them.

So we are limited human beings. Whatever area of dialogue is crucial for you, you take that seriously. And not rejecting any of the Pramanas, find a way to respect the supreme authority of Shabda while integrating the other Pramanas within that understanding, in a way that respects their validity also.

And investigate that area. And other areas will be investigated by others. Thank you, Prabhu.

This is very intellectually reasonable, and I would say, for many reassuring explanations of the epistemology of Shabda. So I'll try to do a quick summary. So we started by discussing about the times when basically two main topics were discussed.

The topic was about, started by talking about how Shabda is considered supreme. But at the same time, when Shabda also has to make sense to our perception. So we discussed, one was the authenticity of Shabda.

How do we do that? And that for that, just as how do we know authenticity of anything, of any piece of writing? We look at the author, we look at the publication, we look at the previous sources cited, we look at the reception, we look at the logic, look at the coherence, sensibility. So same way, Shabda also is like that. That is, it's coming in scripture, it's quoted by, it is written by people with great character.

It is accepted by the community of scholars. Then one key point, this is swataha pramana. That was something elaborate, we discussed.

Swataha pramana doesn't mean self-evident, it doesn't mean evident to self-perception, but self-evident, sensory perception, but self-evident, like the reality of consciousness. And things which are in the domain of swataha pramana will also increase as we grow spiritually. So then we discussed about the conflict.

And the idea is that when there is conflict, it is not that one pramana has to be rejected for the other. The principle at Jiyugoswami, so sometimes lakshana vritti may have to be used instead of the direct vritti, nikhya vritti. And when it is used, it has to be in connection, it has to be connected, it should be, actually lakshana vritti is required in two contexts, when it doesn't, a textual context it doesn't make sense or empirical context it doesn't make sense.

Very nice, yeah, excellent. So when it doesn't make sense, and when there's a reasonable connection, and then you give two, three examples of the river on the, of the village on the river, or the water speaking or the snow stones floating, the idea is we make shabda intelligible to shabra protection. And specifically how to do that, that is something which every generation, the evolution of knowledge will have to do.

And we do it, we suspend judgement as a matter of shraddha. And whichever areas are important for us, we work on it, we associate with those who are working on it. And as per our need, that can be what, so this is the dialogue between them has, can be evolving.

It doesn't have to be one conclusive, perfect understanding of how the two come together. But the underlying principle is there is, it's not that one has to be rejected for the other. And how the two can be brought together, that can be a, that can be the developmental stage, and that we can work in contributing to help it grow.

So thank you so much. So this has been a wonderful discussion. Maybe we can have another discussion future on the idea of what it means and what it does not mean.

Yes, that would be wonderful. Thank you, Prabhu. I always appreciate my conversations with you.

And this one in particular, I think many wonderful points came out as a result of this discussion, as a result of the dialogue that would not have emerged in a lecture format. So thank you. Thank you so much.