NAME 46

One who cannot be defined, explained, measured, etc. through logical means, (but who can only be experienced) Pramatum Na Yogya: Aprameyah He, who cannot be defined and explained in terms of any logical term of reference with other things should necessarily be inexpressible. A thing that can be directly perceived (Pratyaksha) can be desired, certain other things, which we may not directly perceive, but can be infer them from data available. And there are yet things which can be brought home to the listener by describing them in terms of similar other objects (Upama). Since the infinite has no ‘Properties’. It cannot be perceived, nor can It be “understood through inference.” Nor even explained in terms of similar or dissimilar things.” Hence the supreme Reality, Vishnu, is called as Aprameyo. We can experience him only by ending all sense of separativeness and becoming one with Him.

Aprameyaḥ: One who is not measurable or understandable by any of the accepted means of knowledge like sense, perception, inference etc.

Lalitā Sahasranāma name 413 is also aprameya.

Brahman cannot be measured, as He is out of bounds of human comprehension He cannot be known through senses as he is devoid of qualities such as sound etc. He cannot be visualized because we have not seen Him. He cannot be known through examples because there is nothing to make a comparison (this is based on the simple logic that a rat cannot be compared to a lion though both have four legs, a tail etc.). He cannot be known either by affirmations or by negations as we do not have any basis for such affirmations and negations. But Vedas and Upaniṣad-s try to explore (though by affirmations and negations, as the perceptive knowledge can be inferred only by such affirmations and negations only) Him as “That” and says that He exists as self-illuminating light witnessing the activities of His creation. Kena Upaniṣad (I.6) explains this point a little more elaborately. “Know that alone to be Brahman which the mind cannot comprehend and which yogi-s say makes the mind function. Brahman is not this sense world, which people worship”. The Upaniṣad continues to say “If you think (guru addressing his disciple) ‘I know the Brahman well’ then it is for certain that you know little about the nature of the Brahman. You know only its manifestation in the individual self, the gods, and the phenomenal world. Therefore, Brahman should still be thoroughly investigated”. But we need some basic inputs to know Him.

Aprameyah – One who is Immeasurable

Aprameyah means one who cannot be defined, explained or measured. In the physical world normally everything is defined by one of the following means by:

Direct perception through the senses namely by seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling or touching. This is called ‘Pratyaksha’.

Inference from an associated object. For example smoke is always associated with fire. So the presence of smoke leads one to conclude there must be fire in the vicinity. This is called ‘Anumaana’.

Example or analogy. An unknown object is defined by citing examples using known objects. This is called ‘Upamana’.

Written or verbal description from an authoritative source. This is called ‘Shabda Pramaanam’.

Now defining the Bhagavan by direct perception (Pratyaksha) is not possible because he is beyond the reach of our sense organs. As Katha Upanishad puts it ‘Ashabdam Asparsham Aroopam Avyayam tathaa Arasam Nityam Agandhavat cha yat’ – That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay, without taste, without smell, without beginning and without end’. Such an entity is clearly beyond the comprehension of our sense organs.

He cannot be explained by inference (Anumaaana) because he is devoid of the associated objects leading to inference. He is unique and without connections.

He cannot be explained by citing examples or analogies (Upamana) because there is nothing to compare Him with. He is Infinite and everything else is finite and so comparison with anything else is ruled out.

He cannot be explained or defined by written or spoken texts because language is only finite and cannot adequately express what Infinite is. Even those who are Muktaas or liberated souls can only experience Him but cannot explain Him. In Tamil there is a saying ‘KandavarVindilar, VindavarKandilar –  those who have realised God cannot describe Him, those who describe Him have not realised Him!’

Even Brahma who is seated on the lotus emanating from Lord’s navel will not know everything about the Lord.

४६. ॐ अप्रमेयाय नमः।

46. Om Aprameyaay Namah

Aprameyah – He, who cannot be defined and explained in terms of any logical term of reference with other things should necessarily be inexpressible. A thing that can be directly perceived (Pratyaksha) can be desired, certain other things, which we may not directly perceive, but can be infer (anumaama) them from data available. And there are yet things which can be brought home to the listener by describing them in terms of similar other objects (Upamaa). Since the infinite has no ‘Properties’. It cannot be perceived, nor can It be “understood through inference.” Nor even explained in terms of similar or dissimilar things.” Hence the supreme Reality, Vishnu, is called as Aprameyah. We can experience him only by ending all sense of separativeness and becoming one with Him. The Lord Who is Beyond Rules, Regulations and Definitions

INTERPRETATION GUIDED BY SANT VANI (WORDS OF SAINTS)

Aprameyaḥ

The one who is not an object of knowledge.

He who is unbounded, immeasurable, infinite, unlimited, unfathomable, incomparable, inscrutable – who cannot be ‘proved’ or “demonstrated” through the normal means of measurements (know to the human mind).

In the Gita also, Bhagavan is referred to as aprameya, the one who cannot be known as an object of knowledge. This post requires a little more attention as a technical discussion follows. Some of the reasons, we cannot dismiss Vedanta are:

Vedanta is not an abstract theory; it is about me, the subject, the knower. Neither is it about translating theory into practice, which could well apply for other matters. Vedanta is not a matter of blind belief and faith.The guru respects the students understanding and the commitment is to make the student see the reality about oneself.

Vedanta says that the person is already free from the sense of limitation the person experiences and hence the person must know.

Since self knowledge is the goal, Vedanta is a means of knowledge to remove wrong notions. Pramā is knowledge and the means of knowledge is called pramāṇa. The one, who handles the pramāṇa, is pramātā, the knower, the subject. What is to be known, that is, the object of knowledge is prameya. Na prameyaḥaprameyaḥ. Therefore, aprameya means that which cannot be known as an object of nowledge, that is, it is not an object of any pramāṇa, any means of knowledge. The Lord is Aprameya, not available as the object of any means of knowledge. This sounds really contradictory! On the one hand, we hear – One must understand Īśvara and then we hear Īśvara cannot be known as other things are known? How is that possible?? Therefore, this nāma has to be understood well.

Some commentators have used the Ocean as an allegory or a metaphor sometimes to show how immeasurable and vast the Supreme being is. However, Śaṅkara the supreme advaitin, does not approve of this – according to him even comparing the supreme being to any other object, however vast, is still a limitation placed on the supreme being and therefore not valid. The very nature of the infinite is to be immeasurable and incomparable.

As Parāsara Battar points out in his commentary, Brahmā himself declares that the supreme being cannot be measured or visualized through the normal means of perception known to most of us:

We do not know the beginning, middle or end of the ‘birthless’ supreme being – whose form, all things are. We neither know the essential nature of the supreme being; nor his sublime greatness, nor his power. Whether, he is taken as “Saguna” (possessed of all auspicious qualities & majestic in form ) or Nirguna (or bereft or all qualities and formless), he is not cognizable (known or understood) by the normal mind and/or normal means, he is the indwelling Ātman, (who can only be “realized” by the ‘self’ that has turned its gaze inward)

What this means is that words, thoughts, gestures, expressions etc. are simply not enough and essentially too limited in describing that supremely effulgent being – they can barely reach the frontiers of the magnificence of his being. He cannot be ‘understood’ through empirical or experimental means:

1. He cannot be visualized/measured or ‘known’ through Pratyakṣa Pramāṇa as he cannot be “seen” using the (normal) eyes or ‘perceived’ through the sense organs – as he is formless, tasteless, odorless and so on.

2. He cannot be known.measured through Anumāna Pramāṇa– i.e. arriving at a conclusion through the process of inference, evidence, reasoning, and deduction.

3. He cannot be known/measured through the process of Upamāna Pramāṇa – i.e. by comparing with something else or by giving an analogy – because as Śaṅkara states he is incomparable and also because in his ultimate-absolute state he not only exists everywhere but also transcends his own creation – so what shall we compare him with or against?

4. He cannot be measured/known by the Pramāṇa of Anupalabdi – i.e. the process of negation because there is no place that he is not there or nothing that he does not exist within (or without), being all pervasive.

5. He cannot be known/measured by SāstraPramāṇa as well – here too, they are only descriptive and cannot provide the real experience of the form of the Supreme being.

6. He cannot be measured/known through Śabda Pramāṇa as well because even that would be a secondary ‘derived’ perception – as it requires relying on words, testimony, proofs provided by others. While reliable testimony of experts, saints, seers, sages, parents, Gurus, Sāstras are all indeed valid, it must be noted that none of it is “YOUR” own personal experience of the reality of the Supreme being – which is the ultimate Pramāṇa – the Ātmā Pramāṇa – when the reality of the supreme is reflected within our own heart-space and ‘he’ is realized as the Paramātmā dwelling within the Jivātma.

The only way to “know” him is to realize him – personal experience is the only way available as Swami says discover your own truth.

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to give the example of the salt doll that decided to measure the ocean and lost ‘itself’ in the expanse of the salt water. Also, every time he tried to talk about that great experience of ‘oneness’, he would choke up and himself go into Samādhi. Om Swamiji too has said in an answer to a question asked during the Gayatri camp that he will record the divine vision of Bhagwan Shri Vishnu only before he leaves the body as it will not be possible for him to retain the body if he goes back to the intensity of that vision.

Please listen from 19min – 24min

There is that episode in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and the Nārāyaṇīyam where Yaśodā tried to tie up baby Kṛṣṇa to prevent him from stealing butter – even as she repeatedly tied to tie him up, she found that no matter how many strings she attached, the rope was always a few inches short. Finally, seeing her perspiring and exhausted Kṛṣṇa out of compassion allows himself to be tied up – this is the real nature of the supreme being – what cannot be achieved through the several means detailed above, is possible when one approaches him with Bhakti (selfless devotion) and Śraddhā – it is to them that he reveals himself and at that moment of realization the “lone” merges with the ‘alone‘ – in the merging of the “self” in the ‘supreme self‘ the self loses itself so completely that it cannot describe this experience to anyone else and therefore each experience is unique in itself.

How do we know what we know? There are many means of knowledge. A friend was planning a holiday to Greece, and when she saw the website, she saw a section called ‘sights and sounds’.

By clicking on that, there were pictures and information about the main cities and the things that tourists could do. She was able to know more about Greece and accordingly plan her trip.

Our senses are faithful reporters of knowledge – the eyes for sight, ears for sounds, nose for smells, the tongue for sense of taste and skin for the sense of touch. In Sanskrit, they are referred to as jnānendriyah meaning sense organs of knowledge. All these constitute direct perception called pratyakṣa. How do I know the skin or rather hide of an elephant is rough? By touch. I cannot figure out the hide is rough by either seeing, smelling or hearing it. The sphere of operation for each sense organ is distinct. I can’t see music. I can see musical notes but I hear music. Thus, if an object is to be known, is to be objectified by any of these perception based pratyakṣa-pramaṇas, it has to have a form or sound or smell or taste or touch.

Is the Lord available for knowledge through the sense organs? The sense organs are also the Lord and the perceiver is also the Lord. Therefore, He is everything. But, from the stand-point of His svarupa, He is aśabda, asparśa, arūpa, arasa, agandha. Thus, śabdādi-rahitatvat – being free from sound, touch, form or taste, napratyaṣagamyaḥ–He is not available as a prameya, an object of direct perception.

What is not available for pratyakṣa, direct perception, can be inferred. When you hear a distinct loud sound of a motorcycle, you say that a Royal Enfield bullet motorcyle is coming along, even though you do not see it. This is one step inference. You hear the sound and you say that it must be this particular brand of motorcycle, because earlier, you have seen that when there is the motorcycle, there is this loud, distinct sound – thus the two are associated with each other. Inference is anumāna-pramāṇa; it is also a valid means of knowledge.

Is Īśvara an object of inference? You may say, ‘I see the jagat and therefore, there must be a cause, a kartā.’ But, how can you say there is only one kartā for the jagat? There may be many  kartās, doers, just as, for a palace. But, how are you going to prove that this world is a creation, unless you have seen an earlier creation? And, without proving the creation, how are you going to infer a creator? There is no way of proving the creator because the psotualtes based on perception are not there. To know that this world is a creation, somebody should have seen that was there was a non creation before the creation. Īśvara is not purely anumāna-gamya, not arrived at by inference.

When a doctor makes a diagnosis that a person has TB of the spine, he has not cut open the body to see TB. The X ray indicates certain changes in the spine which are likely to be associated with tuberculosis. So he rules out other conditions and arrives at a medical diagnosis by a two step process – the results of the X ray and the signs and symptoms co existing with the condition of tuberculosis. This is a two step inference called arthāpatti, presumption.

Can we arrive at Īśvara through arthāpatti? Without seeing something, you cannot say that this must have definitely come from Īśvara. When perception (pratyakṣa) is not there, then anumāna and arthāpatti, inference and presumption, cannot work, because the basic data for any inference or presumption are provided only by sense perception. If it is not available for sense perception, then it is not available for anumāna and arthāpatti.

When you say, the wild beast in Africa look like a cross between deer and has the face of a bull, it is upamāna or comparison. You have seen deer and you have also seen the face of a bull. When you see an animal that you have not seen before and is roughly sized like deer and has a bull like face, you can conclude by upamāna, that it should be wild beast. Comparison is also a means of knowledge.

Knowledge of the absence of an object in a given place is also a means of knowledge called anupalabddhi. There is no flower in my hand. With reference to the flower that you know you say, ‘I see the absence of flower in your hand.’ This is not based on perception. From a scientific standpoint to see something, light has to reflect off the surface of the object. In the case of an absent flower there is nothing for light to reflect off. We do not see absence in the way we see presence of a flower. This is a particular means of knowledge different from perception is called abhāva-pramāṇa and by this you arrive at the absence of an object.

Now that we have looked at the 5 means of knowledge, let us try and put the Lord to a test. To see the Lord; the Lord must have a form ; only then upamāna, comparison is possible. Because the Lord is nirbhāga, has no parts to compare, upamāna is not possible. Anupalabdhi is recognition of abhāva, absence whereas Bhagavān has a bhāva, existence.The Lord cannot be inferred nor can a presumption be made.

Īśvara exists and if we cannot know Him through pratyakṣa, anumāna, arthāpatti, upamāna or anupalabdhi, what are the means of knowledge that we can use to know Him? Saguṇa-brahma, that is, Īśvara can be known indirectly by śabda-pramāṇa, the words of the śāstra. The śāstra says, that Īśvara, is in the form of the world and He is both the maker and material cause of this world. Other religions do acknowledge God as an almighty, intelligent being. The unique contribution of the śāstra is that ‘all that is here is Isvara.’ This can be neither arrived at nor negated by any means of knowledge at our disposal like perception, inference, 2 step inference, comaparison, recognition of absence. The Lord is to be known only through the śāstra; Vedānta is a teaching tradition and the tradition looks upon it as a pramāṇa.

Either you accept it as a pramāṇa or you do not even touch it, because to prove that it is not a pramāṇa, there is no pramāṇa.

The validity of an independent means of knowledge is not proved by another means of knowledge. The eyes see and the ears hear. Only ears have to prove whether they hear or not. Eyes have no access to prove whether the ears hear or not. Similarly whether Vedānta works or not, only Vedānta has to prove, not anything else.

Therefore looking upon Vedānta as a pramāṇa puts you in a frame of mind which is called śraddhā. By this śraddhā one gains the knowledge that ātmā is Brahman, the limitless. That is why the Bhagavad Gita, says, śraddhāvān labhate jñānaṁ – the one who has śraddhā gains the knowledge.

Some people may say, “ I don’t have enough sraddha in the sastra. ‘ It’s okay. We don’t want to judge ourselves on that basis. As long as one has working trust pending understanding in the śāstra, it is enough, to begin with. If one has this approach, then it works. Śāstra is a pramāṇa, in the form of words. It is means of knowledge. Words can talk about jāti, species; guṇa, attribute; sambandha, relation and kriyā, action. Please refer to details about the sphere of words in post 25 and word 24. परुषोत्तमेः. Īśvara is not just another being who can just be described by words. No word can do justice, hence 1000 ways of looking at Ishvara through this Vishnu sahasranama start to contribute to the understanding.

When we say Īśvara is aprameya, it does not mean that He cannot be understood even through the sastra; then, the śāstra would become useless. Here, aprameya means that it is pramāṇa-aviṣaya, not available for objectification by other pramāṇa, as in the case of other objects.

Objectification makes something remote. But Isvara is not remote, sitting in a corner. Because of this understanding, we banish him to a corner and behave as if Isvara is dead in our life and in our situations.

But, the prakāśa-svarūpa, the self-revealing consciousness that lights up everything, need not be revealed by any pramāṇa, cannot be revealed either. That I exist is self evident. I cannot figure out that I exist, either by seeing myself in the mirror (perception) or concluding that ‘I am married and therefore I infer I exist ‘(inference) or any other means of knowledge. About ‘What I am’ I can come to many conclusions. That ‘I am’ is clearly known, even by a baby who has not yet developed language.

Then, how does the śāstra work as a pramāṇa, as a means of knowledge? The śāstra says, that the essential nature of Īśvara is ‘satyam jñānam anantam’ and that is the Parātmā. The words are handled in a unique way such that the meaning stays while the word goes away. The reality of Īśvara is aprameya, not an object of any means of knowledge because it is nirguṇa, without attributes and nirākāra, without a form, but the basis for all forms. The śāstra works as a pramāṇa by implication, by negating all that it is not, but which has been superimposed wrongly due to ignorance.