Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

“A hundred scriptures cannot make fire cold”: Śaṅkara’s rule for when scripture and perception collide

Arjun Iyer Fellow
· 5 replies
Revelation & scriptureIndianIslamicJewishMimamsaVedantaAdi ShankaraIbn RushdKumārila Bhaṭṭa#aql-and-naql#harmonisation#scriptural-authority#vedanta
Follow

Discussions here of reason and revelation usually draw on Ibn Rushd and Maimonides. They deserve it. But the Advaita tradition worked out its own conflict rule, and I think it belongs in the same conversation.

For Śaṅkara, scripture (śruti) is a means of knowledge, but a specialised one. Its authority covers what no other means of knowledge can reach: the nature of Brahman, and what ought to be done. It does not compete with perception about ordinary things. In his commentary on the Gītā he makes the point with a memorable example: even a hundred scriptural statements could not make fire cold or dark. Where a scriptural passage seems to contradict what perception plainly shows, the passage must have another purpose, and we read it accordingly.

So far this is structurally close to the rule of Ibn Rushd and Maimonides: scripture and a genuine source of knowledge cannot really conflict; apparent conflict means the text needs another reading.

But Advaita adds a twist I find fascinating and slightly troubling. At the ultimate level, the world that perception shows us is itself sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. It is real for practical purposes, not ultimately real. So scripture defers to perception within the everyday world, and overrules the everyday world as a whole.

Is that a principled division of labour between sources, or a way of having it both ways? I'd be glad to hear from people inside and outside the tradition, and from those who know the Islamic and Jewish rules better than I do.

LikeReply
Follow5 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

5 replies

  1. Govinda Prasad Upadhyaya

    Fellow

    The Mīmāṃsā version is older and in some ways simpler. For us the Veda's purpose is injunction: it tells you what to do. Descriptive passages, arthavāda, are praise or explanation that support an injunction; they are not factual reports. When a text says "the sacrificial post is the sun", nobody is meant to look for the sun in the post. So the conflict with perception never arises, because the Veda was never in the business of reporting perceptible facts. Śaṅkara's rule extends that thought to a scripture that also speaks of Brahman.

    Helpful · 1
  2. Arvind Poojary

    Fellow

    An outsider's question, Arjun-ji, asked with respect. Who decides what lies beyond the reach of perception and inference? Historically the line has moved. Plenty of things once thought to be the domain of sacred texts, the shape of the earth, the age of the cosmos, are now matters of observation. Doesn't the rule quietly hand more and more territory to perception over time?

    Helpful · 2
    1. Arjun Iyer

      Fellow

      Arvind, yes, and I think that is the rule's strength rather than its embarrassment. Śaṅkara would not want scripture to defend a territory perception can survey. If cosmology falls to observation, scripture loses nothing it was ever meant to hold. What cannot move, on his view, is the knowledge of the self as Brahman, because no perception or inference could ever reach it. Whether there is such knowledge is, of course, exactly where you and I part.

      Helpful · 3
  3. Miriam Adler

    Fellow

    Maimonides would recognise your rule at once. His version, in the Guide, is that where a matter is demonstrated, the text is read figuratively, and where it is not, the plain sense stands. The difference I notice is that he does not have your second, ultimate level. For him the created world is fully real, and nothing in the knowledge of God makes it less so. So he has the first half of Śaṅkara's rule but not the twist.

  4. Bilal Rashid

    Fellow

    And Ibn Rushd adds a question about who may apply the rule. In the Decisive Treatise he says figurative interpretation belongs to those capable of demonstration, and that it should not be broadcast to people who cannot follow the demonstrations, because it would unsettle their faith without giving them anything in its place. Does Advaita have a similar restriction? I ask because a rule is only as good as the people trusted to use it.

    Helpful · 1