In English
Determining the existence of
We generally consider direct perception as the most important type of evidence. We are able to see our body. We are able to see how many hands we have, how many legs we have, how many eyes, and so on. That is not all. We boil milk and add some curd to it at night and the next morning find that the milk has turned into curd. For the conversion of milk to curd, our own action provides the direct proof. The evidence of our own eyes is enough to convince us about how the change from milk to curd has occurred. We do not need anyone else's authority for that. But our mind is not visible. We cannot understand what is meant by .. We believe in the existence of the on the strength of the statements made by the great sages who have had the experience and who have conveyed the teaching. or inference is another form of proof. We see smoke on the top of a distant hill. We infer from the smoke that there must be a fire on the hill. Although we see only the smoke, we infer that there is fire. To infer the existence of the "unseen" from the presence of what is "seen" is (inferential proof). To take another instance: If a person who has gone to gives us a description of the place, those who may have seen the place would be able to appreciate or agree with the account given by the visitor, but those who have not been to the place can only appreciate the verbal description but cannot have the experience of direct perception. But these methods of determining facts are applicable only to the external universe. For determining, however, the Divine Principle-we must depend only on the of the . When the Divine is described as without attributes, eternal, ever-existing, pure, free, and self-effulgent, this description will not make the visible to us. It is only when the state of is realised by us that its existence becomes valid.