Fundamentals of Vedanta Topic 4: Indirect Versus Direct Knowledge

1. Introduction
2. Three Misconceptions
   1. The Unnecessary Adjective “Intellectual” Prefixed to Knowledge
   2. On Becoming Liberated
   3. The Experience of Brahman
3. Indirect Versus Direct Knowledge
4. Descriptive Versus Introductory Words
5. Examples of Introductory Words Producing Direct Knowledge
6. Words of Vedanta are Introductory Words that Produce Direct Knowledge of the Self

Introduction

Students of Vedanta often have this orientation in their approach to Vedanta: “I have done Vedanta Śravaṇam. I have so far gained only intellectual knowledge. Now, I have to experience Brahman”. This is often justified by an example along the following lines that indicates that intellectually knowing about a thing is not the same as experiencing that thing: “For example, I hear and read about the Valley of Flowers in the Himalayas. Those words create some imagery in my mind of mountains, valleys, and exotic flowers. However, it only remains an image of the real thing – only intellectual knowledge. Subsequently, only when I visit the Valley of Flowers myself, do I gain the direct experience of it”. Similarly, the student continues, “With Vedanta śravaṇam, I have only gained some intellectual knowledge of Brahman, and now I have to become liberated by experiencing Brahman.” Sounds familiar? It is worth noting that there are several fallacies in such thinking indicated by the phrases in bold letters above. Let us take each of them and indicate the problem:

Three Misconceptions

The Unnecessary Adjective “Intellectual” Prefixed to Knowledge

An adjective is required to be added to a noun to distinguish an object from other objects of the same species but of a different kind. For example, when flowers of multiple colors are placed together, then it makes sense to say “give me the blue flower”, which helps one understand exactly which flower you are referring to. But when there are no variations in the object concerned, adding an adjective is unnecessary. For example, there is no need to say: “Give me 100 gms of yellow turmeric” because turmeric is always yellow! Just saying “Give me 100 gms of turmeric” should suffice. Moreover, adding an adjective when none is required is not only unnecessary, but can also be confusing, for it can make the listener/reader believe that there are variations of the object, when in reality, none exist! Given this, let us now come to the phrase intellectual knowledge. Is the adjective “intellectual” before the noun knowledge really necessary? All knowledge takes place in the intellect only. There is no such thing that can be called dental, cranial, or skeletal knowledge! All knowledge is intellectual only! Hence, let us eliminate the unnecessary adjective “intellectual” alongside knowledge for our own clarity of thinking and just call it knowledge, and also understand that whatever the form of knowledge, secular or spiritual, it takes place in the intellect only!

On Becoming Liberated

Secondly, Vedanta doesn’t say that I have to become liberated! Vedanta says, “You are Brahman, and as Brahman, you are eternally liberated”. The problem is that I don’t know this fact. Hence, the problem is one of ignorance of this fact. Therefore, Knowledge of this fact alone is the solution. Thus, the solution is not to become liberated, but to know that I have always been, I am, and will ever be eternally liberated. And where does such Knowledge arise? In the skeleton, or in my teeth, or in my veins? No, this knowledge, too, like any other knowledge, arises in the intellect only!

The Experience of Brahman

Thirdly, regarding “experiencing Brahman“, the question is, what is this Brahman that one wants to experience? If we take Brahman to be an Object, no experience can be Brahman experience, for Brahman is never an Object of experience. To objectify Brahman is to limit Brahman. On the other hand, if we take Brahman to be the Subject, then every experience is Brahman experience, as there can be no experience without the Subject. Therefore, the aim of Vedanta study is not some special experience of Brahman, but to know that the very “I” present in every mundane experience is none other than Brahman. So Vedanta is not about gaining an extraordinary experience, but it is about gaining an extraordinary knowledge that transforms my understanding of ordinary experience. And again, this extraordinary knowledge has to take place in the intellect only!

Indirect Versus Direct Knowledge

Now having said that all Knowledge (including spiritual knowledge) takes place in the intellect only, Vedanta acknowledges that there is a difference between Indirect Knowledge (parokṣa jñānam) and Direct Knowledge (aparokṣa jñānam). Both therse kinds of knowledge take place in the intellect only.

Descriptive Versus Introductory Words

When the object whose knowledge is to be gained is separated from me in terms of space (distance) or time, then Śabda pramāṇa (such as the description of the Valley of Flowers in the example above) can only produce Indirect Knowledge (parokṣa jñānam), never Direct Knowledge (aparokṣa jñānam). Descriptive words produce only Indirect Knowledge (parokṣa jñānam).

However, there are certain special cases when śabda pramāṇa can and does produce Direct Knowledge (aparokṣa jñānam). When the object to be known is present here and now, when the object is already experienced, there is general knowledge of it, but one lacks some special knowledge of it, in such cases, śabda pramāṇa can and does produce Direct Knowledge (aparokṣa jñānam). These words then do not function as “descriptive words”, but they become “Introductory words“.

In case of Descriptive words, the description comes first, followed by an experience of the object sometime later. In case of Introductory words, however, the experience is already there, but when I have made a mistake with regards to what I am already experiencing, the words correct my mistake by introducing me to what I am already experiencing.

Examples of Introductory Words Producing Direct Knowledge

Here are a few examples of introductory words producing Direct Knowledge (aparokṣa jñānam):

1) As we saw in the Tenth Man story, the Tenth Man, not knowing that he himself was the Tenth Man, embarked on a search looking for the Tenth Man. The passerby’s introductory words, “You are the Tenth!”, produced Direct Knowledge (aparokṣa jñānam). He did not have to listen to those words and then do something else to experience the Tenth Man. He was already experiencing the Tenth Man, but he had mistaken the already being experienced Tenth Man to be other than the Tenth Man. The words just introduced the already experienced himself to himself.

2) An old man with a very defective vision looks at a large fruit in front of him and tells his wife, “I only see a Pumpkin, I don’t see the Jackfruit that we bought yesterday.”, His wife responds, “The thing that you are calling the Pumpkin is the Jackfruit that we bought yesterday”. On hearing those introductory words, he realizes that the so called pumpkin that he was already experiencing was, in fact, not a pumpkin but the jackfruit he was looking for. Again, just the introductory words and their understanding achieved the Direct knowledge. He did not need to experience the jackfruit separately.

3) Swami Dayananda gives another funny example from a real incident (The narration/quotes here are not meant to be verbatim, but only my own paraphrasing of the incident based on what I recall. The key message to be conveyed remains intact). Swamiji was once seated on a flight. Next to him, there was a foreigner who had a rather large frame. That man struggled to fit in the seat, and Swamiji had to shift a bit to the side in his own seat to make room for him. In spite of that, the foreigner’s hand, shoulder, and leg were still all over Swamiji. He started a conversation with Swamiji. He was in India for some sightseeing, etc. Then Swamiji asked him where he was going. “Dehradun”, he replied. Then Swamiji asked him what he planned to do there. He said he wanted to meet a Swami about whom a friend had told him. Now, Swamiji was curious. He asked him where this Swami lived. He said, “Rishikesh”. Then Swamiji said he is also from Rishikesh, and he asked him where in Rishikesh this Swami lives. He said, “There is some place called purāṇī jhāḍī.”. Now Swamiji couldn’t resist, he asked, “And what is the name of the Swami you want to meet?”. He said, “His name is Swami Dayananda. Can you help me meet him?”. Swamiji smiled. He told him, “I can certainly help you meet him! In fact, that Swami Dayananda you want to meet is right here beside you!!”. As soon as Swamiji uttered these words, his eyes lit up. When Swamiji used to narrate this incident, he comically said, “That Swami you want to meet, you are already experiencing closely; in fact, your hands and legs are all over him, and the poor Swami is getting crushed under you!! But you don’t know that the same Swami under you is none other than Swami Dayananda, whom you want to meet!!”. These words destroyed his Swami ignorance and gave him Direct knowledge of the already experienced Swami.

In all these cases, the lack of experience was not the problem. The object to be known was already being experienced. One had general knowledge of the object. Only a certain special knowledge about the object being experienced was missing. After listening to and understanding the introductory words, the knowledge produced was not Indirect Knowledge that needed to be converted to Direct Knowledge. The knowledge was indeed nothing but Direct Knowledge.

Words of Vedanta are Introductory Words that Produce Direct Knowledge of the Self

In the same way, the Self is already there in every experience and is known as the ‘I’. But being ignorant of what this Self “I” really is, I have superimposed all kinds of wrong ideas over it. When one does vicāra into the words of Vedanta, they knock off the misconceptions and introduce that same I to me as Brahman. The words produce Direct Knowledge for the Self is present here, and now; I know it generally as the “I,” the self-evident Self, the same Self I have taken to be the jīva, not knowing that it is brahman. That is why the tradition says that the mahāvākya produces aparokṣa jñānam (Direct Knowledge). It is not Indirect Knowledge that needs to be converted to Direct Knowledge by doing something else.

This is precisely why Vedanta is considered a pramāṇa. Do the eyes give Direct or Indirect Knowledge of color? The eyes, indeed, give Direct Knowledge. We don’t have to gain Indirect Knowledge of color through the eyes and then do something else to get Direct Knowledge of color. Similarly, the words of Vedanta are the pramāṇa to know the Self, and the resultant Self-Knowledge that arises from such Introductory words is indeed Direct Knowledge.

It may seem incredulous at first that Vedanta can produce Direct Knowledge. In some ways, it is like the skeptical blind man refusing to believe that his eyes will see even after the surgery has been completed. Just as the eye works in its own sphere by producing Direct Knowledge, so does Vedanta produce Direct Knowledge in its own sphere. There is no way to independently prove that Vedanta can produce Direct Knowledge. The only way to get the proof is to use the pramāṇa, i.e., do śravaṇam and see for oneself if it produces Direct Knowledge or not, just as the blind man (who had undergone the surgery) had to see for himself by using his eyes.

Now, if one has a cataract in the eye, even if one opens the eyes, one may not be able to see properly. Similarly, if there is a lack of qualifications in the student, then even after śravaṇam, the Direct Knowledge may not take place. Then the only choice is to get further chitta śuddhi (through karma yoga, etc.), remove the defect, and then repeat the śravaṇam. It is like removing the cataract in the eye and seeing again. A time will come when one will see. The First Knowledge Principle states that when an appropriate and adequate means of knowledge is aligned with the object, and there are no defects, knowledge has to take place. If the eyes don’t see properly due to a defect, we don’t reject the eyes and use something else to get the knowledge of color. We remove the defect in the eye or lighting, etc., and try to see again. In the same way, if śravaṇam doesn’t produce the knowledge, one has to go back, fix the defect, and come back to śravaṇam until the knowledge is produced. That is because Vedanta is a pramāṇa, and in its sphere of operation, which is Self-Knowledge, no other pramāṇa can be substituted.