Pramāṇa Sanskrit: पपरममाण

• Literally means ‘proof’ and ‘means of knowledge’

• Theory of how human beings gain accurate, true knowledge
• Much debated in Indian philosophy (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) since ancient times
• From one to ten valid/reliable means are suggested or accepted by a scholar or school
• Counterpart in Western philosophy is epistomology (‘how do we know what we know?’)

Six most widely discussed pramanas:

1. Perception (external = using the five senses; internal = using the mind or inner sense)

◦ Direct experience of sensory organs (not hearsay); Repeatable/Unchanging; Not due to

flaws in sensory organs; Not subject to doubt (free from omission and bias)

2. Inference (applying reason to previous observations and truths, to reach a new truth)

◦ Example: Observing smoke and inferring fire

◦ Requires a hypothesis, reason, and examples (positive examples as evidence, and no
negative examples as counter-evidence)

3. Comparison/analogy

◦ Example: Someone travels to a foreign land, sees an exotic animal, and tries to explain it
to one who has never seen it personally: this exotic animal sort of looks and grazes like a
cow, but is not a cow, because it is different in such and such a way
◦ Considered by some to be a valid means of conditional knowledge (it will help a future
traveller to identify the new animal later, once it is directly perceived by the traveller)

4. Postulation/derivation from circumstances (like circumstantial implication or modus ponens)

◦ Modus ponens: P implies Q and P is asserted to be true, therefore Q must be true

◦ Example: A person left earlier on a plane trip and the time is now past the expected time
of arrival, so we conclude that the person must have arrived
◦ Viewed by some as a valid means to conditional knowledge; viewed by others to be
derivative or flawed (involves postulation, extrapolation and circumstantial implication)

5. Non-perception, Negative/cognitive proof (proving something is non-existent or impossible)

◦ The view that knowing a negative (such as ‘there is no water in this room’) is a form of
valid knoweldge (when the other pramanas fail)
◦ There can be non-perception of causes; effects; objects; and of contradiction

6. Reliable expert testimony (spoken or written word of past or present reliable experts)

◦ There must be means to establish reliability (and these can be debated)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana
Epistomology

In a philosophical context:

• The study of knowledge in general

◦ How does a person get to know something?
◦ What is the basis for true knowledge?

• One view of knowledge: justified, true belief

• Empiricism vs. Rationalism

◦ Empiricism: true knowledge is primarily founded on experience and observations (not
ideas or tradition)
◦ Rationalism: true knowledge is a product of reasoning (of the human mind)

In a non-philosophical context:

• Epistomology discusses limits and possibilities of creating and reporting new knowledge
• This is very relevant to scientists, scholars, and educators
• Producing new knowledge is a major task of academics

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI9-YgSzsEQ

Christian Theology
‘Christian theology is the study of Christian belief and practice. Such study concentrates primarily
upon the texts of the Old Testament and the New Testament as well as on Christian tradition.
Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument. Theology might be
undertaken to help the theologian better understand Christian tenets, to make comparisons between
Christianity and other traditions, to defend Christianity against objections and criticism, to facilitate
reforms in the Christian church, to assist in the propagation of Christianity, to draw on the resources
of the Christian tradition to address some present situation or need, or for a variety of other
reasons.’

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Christianity

Thought question: How do Quakers know what they know?

(What would a Quaker epistomology look like?)
Quotes from Ch. 34 (Quakers, Philosophy, and Truth)
from The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies (2015)

‘The debate among philosophers during the seventeenth century is often characterized as a debate
between rationalism and empiricism.’

‘The Quaker sense of knowledge is broader and richer than the typically philosophical sense---in
any biblically resonant tradition “knowledge” includes, beyond cognitive matters, a sense of
“intimate familiarity”.’

‘The early Quakers, in contrast, generally maintained a distinction between the Light Within and
reason.’

‘“That of God in everyone” was highlighted as a positive part of human nature, and it functioned
increasingly as the basis for human rights advocacy and peace testimony based on a doctrine of the
inviolability of this divine core in each person.’

p. 514 ‘But for almost all early Friends...’

p. 517 ‘Being convinced was no mere...’
p. 518, 519

‘...the emphasis here is on knowledge, especially religious knowledge, being tied to a personal
encounter with God, and not suspended in some abstract set of doctrines that one can “know”
without living them. Doctrines not backed up by experience are derisively referred to as “notions”
by Quakers.’