The Lamp of Non-Knowledge Theory: Twenty-Three

Śabda (Testimony): This refers to knowledge acquired from reliable sources, such as authoritative religious texts (like the Vedas) or trustworthy persons possessed of expert knowledge ('āpta puruṣa'). The validity of testimonial knowledge depends entirely upon the credibility, competence, and truthfulness of the source. It serves as a crucial medium for transmitting established truth, tradition, and historical knowledge across generations and communities. This mode of evidence is indispensable for preserving humanity's repository of knowledge. It is not merely the acceptance of oral or written information, but the acceptance of such information after verifying the authenticity of its source. The utterances of āpta puruṣa or scriptural declarations are accepted as truth because their knowledge is considered free from error and their intentions pure.

Logicians acknowledge the existence of certain entities that are not bound by the limits of conventional evidence, but explain them as "internally established." This concept points toward a deep and subtle domain of knowledge that is subjective, intuitive, or deeply experiential. This is knowledge that lies embedded in the depths of a person's consciousness, yet firmly resists objective verification or the rigorous standards of conventional proof. Such knowledge transcends the bounds of ordinary reasoning and often depends upon personal realization and feeling.

The concept of "internally established" knowledge can be interpreted in various contexts:

1. Spiritual and Transcendental Insight: This includes deep spiritual realizations—such as the 'direct realization of Brahman' or 'non-dual knowledge' in Advaita Vedanta—which is acquired through direct experience but cannot be verified by any worldly evidence. This is a special kind of knowledge arising from personal practice and meditation, difficult to explain or prove to others. While such insight may be ultimate truth for the individual, its universal validity cannot be established.

2. Abstract Philosophical Construction: This category includes those philosophical concepts that defy empirical verification. For example, the ultimate, transcendental nature of consciousness as 'pure awareness.' Discussions in philosophy of concepts like the soul, God, or the absolute being belong to this class. Though these concepts are analyzed through reason and argument, there exists no sensory or scientific method to prove their actual existence. They remain abstract ideas rooted in the depths of thought and logic.

3. Deep Personal Mental States: This includes the subjective, inexpressible experience of profound joy or sorrow—falling in love, grief at the loss of a beloved, or the feeling of a deeply peaceful moment. These experiences are so personal and intimate that expressing them fully in language or making another feel them through imitation is nearly impossible. When a person is overwhelmed by deep sorrow or joy, only they know the intensity of that feeling; no external person can fully comprehend it, nor can they provide proof of that feeling. These feelings are established as ineffable truth in the depths of a person's consciousness.

4. Moral and Aesthetic Perception: Moral values or aesthetic beauty may also belong to this category. Perceptions of what is good or evil, beautiful or ugly, are often influenced by a person's personal judgment, culture, and emotions. Though these may have social or cultural foundations, their ultimate standards are often subjective and internal. Universal standards are not always available to prove the beauty of an artwork or the correctness of a moral decision; rather, these depend upon personal feeling.

These "internally established" entities reveal an important dimension of epistemology. They demonstrate that the scope of human knowledge is not limited merely to objective or conventional evidence, but contains deep truths that manifest through a person's subjective realization and experience. These truths present before us an expansive picture of reality and consciousness that cannot be fully grasped through reason or science alone, but requires deep spiritual inquiry and personal experience.

b) Being the Object of Erroneous Knowledge (ayathārtha-jñāna-gamya): This category specifically addresses that which is fundamentally flawed or false, perceived or inferred or conceptually understood through false or non-veridical cognition. This is knowledge that lacks coherence with reality and whose foundation is defective. Such erroneous knowledge may manifest in various forms:

1. Optical Illusion or Māyā: When our senses incorrectly interpret reality. For instance, mistaking a shiny rope for a venomous snake. Here, though a rope exists before the eyes, due to the brain's misinterpretation, it appears as a snake. Similarly, perceiving a mirage in the desert as water is an excellent example. A mirage is merely a natural phenomenon of total internal reflection of light, but our mind accepts it as the presence of water. Such illusions result from misinterpretation of external stimuli.

2. Delusion: This is an error in mental process where a person believes something to be true that is not real, and which is difficult to change through reason or evidence. For instance, if a person believes they are being followed by spies, though there is no real basis for this. Such beliefs may often be related to mental health and lie embedded at deep psychological levels.

3. Misconception: This is a misunderstanding arising from incorrect or incomplete information about a subject. For example, when children think the sun revolves around the earth, this is a misconception arising from their initial observations. Such notions can be corrected through proper education and information.

4. Misinterpretation of Reality: When an event or situation is interpreted differently from its true meaning. For instance, when a person views another's friendly behavior as hostility. This often depends upon personal preconceptions, fears, or mental state.

If a belief, perception, or concept arises from an illusion, delusion, or misconception, or if a misinterpretation of reality is involved, then anything arising from such defective knowledge or its qualifying attributes will inherently lack valid establishment. Such 'knowledge' is not merely incomplete or partial; it constitutes a fundamental misrepresentation of reality. This means such knowledge does not merely show a small portion of reality incorrectly, but distorts and presents the very nature of reality itself.

Consequently, anything built upon its deceptive foundation is considered unestablished in a genuine, true, and epistemologically accurate sense. The validity of any concept, conclusion, or reasoning depends upon its foundation. If the foundation itself is defective, then the structure built upon it will inevitably be weak and unreliable. This highlights the supreme importance of the veridical (truth-following) nature of fundamental knowledge, upon which any subsequent realization or reasoning is constructed, for a defective foundation inevitably leads to a defective conclusion. Only true knowledge can give birth to correct conclusions and right understanding.

A central foundational principle of this comprehensive epistemological system, which extraordinarily expands the scope of knowledge, is this maxim: "Everything nameable is an object of knowledge (sarvam abhidheyaṃ prameyatvāt)." This powerful claim presents a profound philosophical insight—if something can be named, conceptually understood, or referred to through language—whether it be a visible object like a table, an abstract concept like justice, an intense emotion like love, a fictional entity like the old woman in the moon, or even a logical inconsistency like the son of a barren woman—then by its inherent nature it is capable of being an object of knowledge. This maxim is not limited to merely real or existing entities, but includes all conceptually possible subjects.

This principle transcends conventional limitations of epistemology, which often confines knowledge within experienceable or directly perceptible subject matter. The maxim "sarvam abhidheyaṃ prameyatvāt" proposes that the field of knowledge extends beyond the narrow boundaries of empirical perception into the infinite expanse of conceptual and linguistic expression. This means not only what we can see, hear, or touch, but everything we can imagine, name, or comprehend through intellect can be subject matter for knowledge. This provides a liberal and inclusive framework for knowledge acquisition.

For instance, a table is a real object perceptible by the senses, making it a clear object of knowledge. But justice, though an abstract concept, has its own definition, characteristics, and applications, making it worthy of discussion and analysis, thus also an object of knowledge. Similarly, love is an intense emotion that can be felt and expressed, whose psychological and social effects can be studied. Even a fictional entity like "the old woman in the moon," which has no real existence, remains worthy of study as part of folklore, literature, and culture. Most striking is a logical inconsistency like "the son of a barren woman," which, though impossible in reality, can provide deep insight into logic and the nature of existence through conceptual analysis. It creates knowledge about the limitations and philosophical implications of impossible concepts.

This principle also has profound implications for the sources and methods of knowledge. It suggests that knowledge does not arise solely from direct evidence or experience, but that reason, language, and conceptual analysis can also be important sources of knowledge. It validates various philosophical methods where abstract concepts, metaphysical entities, and fictional constructions are also considered legitimate subject matter for philosophical inquiry. This perspective sees knowledge not as a static or limited entity, but as a dynamic and expansive process that evolves seamlessly with the capacity of the human mind for imagination and language. Thus, this maxim is not merely an epistemological declaration but an acknowledgment of the infinite possibilities of human knowledge.