Vaishnava Epistemology Vs. Philosophical and Scientific Skepticism

(written on August 10, 2019)

The skepticism movement is a branch of epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge. Below are the two different forms of skepticism.

Scientific Skepticism:

Scientific skepticism is the application of skeptical philosophy on empirical claims, or claims which we make by the use of our senses. Those who follow this form of skepticism believe that non-empirical claims, meaning religion and belief in God, are unknowable and that they can never be believed because of the lack of empirical proof. Another name for this practice is direct evidence which is what is taught in schools all over the world today as part of the so-called scientific process.

Philosophical Skepticism:

Philosophical skepticism on the other hand, is the practice of questioning the ability of reaching certainty in knowledge. In other words, it is a criticism of scientific skepticism. For example, a scientific skeptic would question and reach to the conclusion that the apple is real, but the philosophical skeptic would question the ability of that person being able to actually know anything. This philosophy sends people into an infinite regress where they keep questioning whether anything is even real. Philosophical skepticism was mainly formed by philosopher Rene Descartes who eventually reached an understanding that the only thing that he couldn’t doubt was the fact that he was doubting. He explained this through his famous words, cogito ergo sum, “I think therefore I am.”

Vaishnava Epistemology:

By following the two schools of skepticism mentioned above, no one will be able to understand what is real and what is not, or whether anything is real. This is why people get so confused about things in the modern world, because they cannot differentiate things. However, Vaishnava epistemology helps us understand real knowledge and define whether something is correct without any uncertainty.

Here is a step-by step explanation of Vaishnava epistemology (as per Sri Isopanisad Introduction by Srila Prabhupada):

1. The four defects of every human being: So we must understand that the method of scientific skepticism or empiricism is the incorrect way to understand knowledge. Srila Prabhupada explains this by stating the four defects of every human being which are: he is prone to committing mistakes, he becomes illusioned, he has a cheating propensity, and his senses are imperfect. This last point is important. The entire basis of empiricism is uprooted because of our limited and conditioned senses. We cannot see certain things, we cannot hear certain things, etc. therefore we cannot understand real knowledge through this practice of the use of senses.

2. The three kinds of pramanas: Pramana means evidence. The three kinds of evidence are pratyaksha-pramana, anumana-pramana, and shabdha-pramana. In the last explanation we defeated pratyaksha-pramana because it is nothing but empiricism. Anumana-pramana is the practice of inductive knowledge or hypothesizing. Much like philosophical speculation, anumana-pramana leads to an infinite regress, because one must keep questioning and keep experimenting to understand. The last of the three kinds of pramanas, shabda-pramana is the perfect manner of gathering knowledge. This is explained by Srila Prabhupada who says, “All this knowledge is there but how will you make experiments? It is not possible. Therefore you have to take the assistance of the Vedas. This is called Vedic knowledge. In our Krishna consciousness movement we are accepting knowledge from the highest authority, Krsna.” Shabda pramana is deductive knowledge because we understand everything by the Vedas which are the fixed authority.

3. Aroha process: Srila Prabhupada further explains why the means of inductive knowledge takes us nowhere. He says, “You accept it as a fact that man is mortal. If you want to research to find out whether man is mortal, you have to study each and every man, and you may come to think that there may be some man who is not dying but you have not seen him yet. So in this way your research will never be finished. In Sanskrit this process is called āroha, the ascending process.” By following shabda, or treating the Vedas as authority, we will reach the correct conclusion and save an exponential amount of time as opposed to the aroha process.

So Vedic epistemology in a nutshell is that in order to gain real and perfect knowledge, we must take shelter of the Vedas and Krishna and understand the world from that point of view. All these other strategies for understanding knowledge do not make things more clear, in fact they do the opposite. They mess you up and make you question the unimportant things. Vedic epistemology is the way of understanding knowledge.