PRA'PTA VA'KYA AND A'PTA VA'KYA 

official source: Tattva Kaomudii Part 2

cross-references: also published in Ananda Marga Philosophy in a Nutshell 	Part 4, Prout in a Nutshell Part 18 (as "Relative Knowledge And Absolute  	Knowledge")

this version: is the printed Prout in a Nutshell Part 18, 1st edition, version 
	(spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most 
	up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition.

      This quinquelemental universe is a relative truth, a changing reality, a passing phenomenon -- a passing flow of constantly changing events. It rests on the three pillars of the relative factors -- time, space and person. Space is always changing. It is composed of countless atoms and molecules. With the change in the movement of atoms and molecules, space also changes. That is why numerous rich and beautiful cities of the past are now buried under the earth. Many splendid palaces and mansions, many churches, temples, mosques and synagogues, and many pyramids have been reduced to rubble. With the constant change in the flow of time, how many major changes have occurred in the universe? Similarly, with the change in time and space, people also change. A small two-year old child becomes a smart and active twenty-five year old youth. And the same energetic youth becomes an infirm, inactive, old person in due course. Thus, nothing in this universe is permanent. Many gigantic animals in the past have become totally extinct from the surface of the earth. Royal pomp and opulence, the pride of power, the vast knowledge of mighty scholars have become things of the past, thrown into the dustbin of history. Many objects emerged in the past, remained on earth for a short time, and then disappeared according to the inexorable law of nature.

	The only eternal truth is Parama Purus'a. He is anadi, beginningless, endless, all-pervasive; an entity beyond the scope of time, place and person. He is the only eternal, undecaying, imperishable, immutable entity. He is the Supreme Source from which the inanimate, plant and animal worlds have emerged. He is the starting point and the culminating point of everything. Hence, wise people should utilise their physical, psychic and spiritual power to realise that Supreme Omni-Tele pathic Entity to become one with Him.

	While trying to realise that singular entity, the balance between the subjective and the objective worlds is divided into two branches -- pra'pta va'kya and a'pta va'kya. Whatever people learn from the external world -- be it from a book of facts or a learned discourse, or any source of knowledge -- is "pra'pta va'kya" or "relative knowledge". It is sometimes correct, sometimes incorrect. When human beings, through psycho-spiritual practice, make their minds as expansive as the Comic Mind, they can receive instructions or directions directly from Him due to His proximity. The knowledge thus ac quired is called "a'pta va'kya" or "absolute knowledge". As people receive the knowledge directly from the Cosmic Mind, that knowledge is true and beneficial for all people in all ages and in all countries. Absolute knowledge is the direct message from God.

	There are three sources of relative knowledge -- direct perception, inference and authority. Now let us see which source is reliable and to what extent. The empiricists contend that per ception is the only real knowledge. How can something which can not be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touch, they say, be ac cepted as something real? But the question is: If the indriyas (organs) through which we gather knowledge are defective, how can true knowledge be attained? Similarly, if the object of attainment is defective, how can true knowledge be attained? Similarly, if the object of attainment is defective, or if there are difficulties in the radiation of inferential vibration, knowledge cannot be acquired. That is why in the shadows of the night we wrongly think a piece of rope to be a snake; we fail to see the difference between a chili and egg plant seeds; on seeing a bushy tamarind tree we mistake it for a ghost and frighten ourselves out of our wits. Thus, with the slightest defect in the knower, knowable and knowledge, real knowledge is not possible.

	Can one attain real knowledge through inference? Suppose smoke is rising from a mountain. Many people may think at first that the mountain is on fire, but on examining the spot they will discover that the smoke had come from a nearby village where the inhabitants were cooking and the smoke had simply accumulated near the mountain. Inference in this case proves false. If some persons look towards the desert during a hot day they will see a vast lake shimmering in the distance. But in reality it is only a mirage. Thousands of people may see the mirage and swear that it is a lake. So inference is also an unreliable source of knowledge.

	The third source of knowledge, a'gama or authoritative documents, can provide real knowledge to human beings. However, if it is not based on spiritual realisation, if it is a mere interpolation arising out of the fertile brain of an opportunist Vipra or intellectual, it can never bring real knowledge to people, but will sow seeds of disharmony and dissension in the human society. For instance, the scripture of a certain community states that the earth is fixed and the sun in moving around it. This assertion is of course absolutely wrong scientifically. If an erudite scientist points out this mistake, the orthodox followers of the scriptures will brand him or her an atheist. The scriptures of other communities proclaim that only the followers of their religion are the favourite children of God and others are damned heathens. To kill them is not at all a sin, rather one will attain a permanent place in heaven after their death. Such scriptures are very detrimental to human society. 

	Thus it is seen that relative knowledge promotes the welfare of human beings in only a few cases, whereas absolute knowledge is always conducive to human welfare.

	Generally there are three recognised means to bring about social welfare: 1) the rule of brute force, 2) the rule of reason, and 3) spiritual leadership. 

	1) The rule of brute force. Sometimes the members of a society are made to follow rules in accordance with the dictatorial decrees of their leaders. But these dictating authorities are far from being benevolent. Rather, they trick the members of society into believing that they are acting for their welfare but their sole concern is to promote narrow self-interest, power and privileges. Their guidance is not at all helpful for the growth of social welfare. For example, the British government ruled India for two hundred years, but how much real progress has there been in India? In most cases, their rule was based on their own self-aggrandizement.

	The political leaders of so many countries have led their countries to the brink of war. The political history of Germany, Italy, Spain, Pakistan and China is a clear proof of this truth. Even though thousands of citizens hardly get enough food to fill their bellies, their leaders continue to spend vast amounts of money on arms.

	History does provide some examples of benign, enlightened kings such as Ashok the Great and Alfred the Great who did some good for society, but they are few in number. Most were warmongers, such as Genghis Khan. They were so cruel that they stained the green earth under their feet with blood, and caused the sky to resound with the wails and tears of their innocent victims. The rule of a brutal dictator is no rule at all.

	2) The rule of reason. What is reason or logic? There are three aspects of logic: va'da, jalpa and vitan'da'. In the battlefield an efficient general does not start the battle without strengthening his own army first. First he sends out his intelligence unit to find the weak points of the opposing army. Secondly, he stations his army in such a way that his own soldiers can mount a surprise attack on the enemy installations. Thirdly, the moment he gets the advantage he invades the enemy camp and attains complete victory. In exactly the same way a logician strives to detect the loopholes and weaknesses in his adversary's argument. This part of the debate is called "va'da". In the next stage the logician formulates convincing argument to defeat the logic put forward by his opponent. This part of the debate is called "jalpa". In the third stage the logician will present very clear views in such a way that his adversary is completely defeated. This part of the debate is called "vitan'da". When one's mind is perfectly adjusted with these three phrases of logic it is called "yukti" or "reason".

	Reason is relative knowledge. Many people may come to the wrong conclusion along the path of reason because if the first premise is wrong, the conclusion is also bound to be wrong. For in stance, if a person studies old books on geography and argues that Allahabad is the capital of Uttar Pradesh or Cuttack is the capital of Orissa, that would be something ludicrous. Rice is also relative knowledge because we do not get rice directly from God, we get it indirectly. If one resolves this very moment to lead an honest life, that would be absolute knowledge because absolute knowledge comes directly from the Supreme and produces a certain awareness in the human mind.

	3) Spiritual leadership. Sha'sana't ta'raye yastu sah'stra parikiirtiitah.

	"That which leads to liberation through discipline is called "scripture".

	Common people usually live their lives according to absolute knowledge and become noble and great. That is why we see people like Kabir and Ramakrishna, who even without formal schooling, were highly regarded by tens of thousands of people. In fact, it is doubtful whether learned scholars could bring about even a small fraction of the spiritual progress these great people brought to society.

	The amount of social welfare achieved by the rule of administration is very insignificant. The rule of administration is no rule. It does not provide any inspiration for the desire to work, but rather it injects a fear psychosis in the mind. Such administrators do not command the confidence of the people. Once they are removed from power they lose their social prestige.

	But social progress is achieved to some extent through relative knowledge, but here also there is a great possibility of conflict between relative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Relative knowledge often encourages divisive ideas and the propagation of narrow sentiments such as casteism, nationalism, communalism, provincialism, etc., by extolling the greatness of caste, community, creed, colour, etc. It often tends to suppress other castes, communities, creeds, etc., or wants to annihilate them completely. On the other hand, absolute knowledge teaches human beings that the Dharma of all humans is one and the same. The Supreme Entity is the Universal Father. All the human beings of the world are brothers and sisters. All are equal -- no one is low, no one is high.

	Relative knowledge, by concocting certain false arguments, may prove that God does not exist, that He is a mere figment of human imagination. A weak mind may accept these arguments, but the heart can never do so. Whenever there is a conflict between the brain and the heart, intelligent people should respond to the call of the heart. The books in A'nanda Ma'rga philosophy are all absolute knowledge. The proper mark of identity of absolute knowledge is that it must be universal, rational and psychologi cal. Certain instances of absolute knowledge are as follows -- the goal of human life is the attainment of Brahma; human beings are the progeny of Parama Purus'a; this universe is created by the macrocosmic connation; matter is the crudified form of the universal mind; by dint of sa'dhana' or spiritual practices human beings gradually become divine; whoever is born will have to die one day; liberation is the birth right of all living beings; human society is one and indivisible; diver sity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform.

How far is relative knowledge acceptable to human society? As long as there is no conflict between absolute knowledge and relative knowledge, relative knowledge may be tolerated, but the moment relative knowledge does more harm than good to society, it should not be allowed to work in society, because by taking advantage of relative knowledge opportunists get the scope to exploit the psychological weakness of human beings. For example, the concept of selfless action in the Giita and the theory of the migration of souls have been interpreted in such an unscientific way that the society is greatly harmed. The boot-licking Vipras of the capitalist trick the hungry Shu'dras or workers into believing that poverty is a result of their previous misdeeds. Hence they will have to be prepared to wait until their next life before receiving the inexorable decree of fate. This makes a group of people passive fatalists. On the other hand, it paves the way for the ruthless exploitation of the capitalists. Once a reputed professor of Calcutta made a statement which became popular amongst Indian students that the beef-eating race enjoys independent political life. Many enthusiastic students were misguided by that. Today in the communist countries of the world thousands of people are being killed in the name of communism. So the value of relative knowledge should be assessed in the light of universal humanism. If relative knowledge promotes universal humanism, it will be tolerated by the society, but once it goes against the spirit of universal humanism, it will forfeit the right to exist.

Tattva Kaomudii Part 2