Sometime ago I wrote a blog article, briefly summarizing scientific method as illustrated by Karl Popper.
Popper describes it using a metaphor of equilateral triangle with three corners of ‘Explanation – Prediction – Testing’. I have found Popper’s metaphor of ‘equilateral triangle’ with three corner points extremely useful.
The referred blog article is here:
https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/tri-murti-of-scientific-method/
—
While reading Patanjali Yoga-Sutra, I came across a Sutra (Aphorism) and instantly realized that I had landed on more intricate and elegant scientific method**.
—
Patanjali Yoga-Sutra: (समाधिपाद)* – Sutra# 7
प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमाः प्रमाणानि ॥७॥ (pratyakṣa-anumāna-āgamāḥ pramāṇāni)
Traditionally this Sutra is translated along the lines of….
“Insight arises from direct perception, conclusions, or learning that are based on reliable sources”
Or
“Three varieties (or methods) of Pramana (Proof, evidence, Testimony) are Pratyaksha, Anumana and Agama.
—
I want to present alternate explanation for this Sutra that is further enriching and exhibits iterative and sophisticated view of acquiring knowledge:
(1) Pratyaksha – Prati (before) + Aksha (Eyes).
This then literally refers to ‘before eyes’, however not limited to eyes bur rater refers to direct evidence. This is the subject independent testing aka objective evidence one refers to in science.
Popper’s equivalent corner point would be that of ‘Testing’.
(2) AnuMana – Anu (following, agreeably to, subordinate to) + Mana (imagination, opinion, thought, idea, mind)
This then is the stuff of conceiving/imagining a theory and then deriving specific ‘testable’ consequences due to very result of a theory.
AnuMana thus can be translated as plausible outcome, conclusion, inference or deduction based on Guess, conjecture or a theory.
Popper’s equivalent corner point would be that of ‘Prediction’
(3) PraMana – Pra (fulfilling) + Mana (imagination, opinion, thought, idea, mind)
I prefer to translate ‘PraMana’, at least in the current context (scientific method) as ‘Insight’ or ‘Explanation’, instead of merely ‘proof’, ‘evidence’ or ‘testimony’.
Popper’s equivalent corner point would be that of ‘Explanation’.
(4) Agama (established knowledge, assumptions, traditional doctrine & precepts)
In Popper’s terminology, equivalent for ‘Agama’ are ‘background knowledge’ and ‘assumptions’
—
Popper’s original contribution, at least in our times, is to recognize that ‘Growth of knowledge’ comes from not any one of these corner points (Explanation – Prediction-Testing) but rather due to successful triangulation of these three when combined with bold theories and background knowledge.
What exactly Sage Patanjali thought about triangulation of these corner points (Pramana-Anumana-Pratyaksha) against the background of bold theories and background knowledge (Agama) is not clear (at least to me) based on this Sutra (#7). It would be unfair to expect one to explain it via an Aphorism. However we can still speculate (Cupiditas Speculandi!)
The fact Patanjali Yoga-Sutra presents wonderful illustration of this triangulation, albeit to be tested only subjectively (at least until now), and thus retain scientific characteristics of his aphorisms means that he would have had this triangulation in mind.
—
On the other hand, anytime ‘Agama’ was misunderstood and was interpreted as ‘knowledge beyond doubt, skepticism or criticism’, humanity has landed in big trouble.
I will give two illustrations:
- Christianity included Aristotelian science as part of their Holy literature, turning it into dogma (i.e. to be accepted uncritically aka not to be questioned), it stagnated growth of knowledge and ensued dark age of Science in Europe.
- It appears that some of the Indian traditions modified Patanjali’s original ‘Pratyaksha-AnuMana-Agama-Pramana’ into ‘Pratyaksha-AnuMana-Shabda’ as means of ‘Pramana’. These traditions twisted this further by ignoring (or forgetting) the necessity of triangulation and also intrinsic role of ‘Pramana’ as part of this triangulation. Worse, they emphasized limitations of ‘Pratyaksha’ and ‘AnuMana’. This by itself was not wrong as they were emphasizing the trivially true! However the worst part of this twisting was their dogmatic insistence on Shabda (Authority-read-uttarance/opinion of Gurus, Godmen, Teachers, Professors, elders) that, IMHO, led to Dark Age of Science in India.
—
** I should add that Popper’s metaphor of Equilateral triangle with three corner points of (Explanation, Testing, and Prediction) does assume generation of Hypothesis (as part of Explanation), resultant consequences (as part of prediction) and also background knowledge.
*Patanjali Yoga-Sutra (योग सूत्रानि पतञ्जलि) has four parts – Samadhi Pada (समाधिपाद), Sadhana Pada (साधनपाद), Vibhuti Pada(विभूतिपाद) and Kaivalya Pada (कैवल्यपाद)
Nilesh Nilkanth Oak 
A response (wonderful one) by Shri Naresh Iyer jI… I am posting it here in notes/reply for my future reference:
—
Interesting and very well thought through as a basis to explain an ‘apparent’ fallback in pursuit of sciences in India when the context is viewed historically. It is precise, extremely clear in its research and conclusion and brief to the extent of the essential.
Having said good words let me get down to the criticism –
1. You have missed an important trick –
Triangulation in ‘space’ leads to location! Triangulation in ‘knowledge’ leads to ‘orthogonality’ !
2. Your statement before ‘(Cupiditas…)’ missed the title of chapter which answers what the triangulation of the sutra aimed at ! It aims at ‘Samadhi’, the ‘orthogonal’ resultant of triangulation on Agama, Pratyaksha and Anumana (irrespective of order as they can be considered mutually perpendicular to each other and the pythagorean superposition principle can adopted for its triangulation) This leads many historians to speculate that Pythagoras and Patanjali might indeed have been the same person with each philosophy (Greek or Hindu, depending on whom you espouse) wanting to appropriate the person in their tradition or Agama in your newer frame of reference.
3. When all 6 pramanas (for reference only, this link is easily accessed universally – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana ) are accepted the ‘triangulation’ leads to a more complex world view in line with greater complexity.
Popper’s falsification is actually closest to Anupalabdhi, where the method of negating a null hypothesis created expansion on the ‘Neti Neti’ aphorism of the Upanishad – the first Na iti for stating the ‘null hypothesis’ like the ‘missing’ or ‘unseen’ horns of the hare and the second ‘Na iti’ for falsifying the null hypothesis to prove a theory akin to Lamarckism to explain the absence of horns in succeeding generation of hares while accounting for their existence earlier !! In short, later thinkers especially Adi Sankara did move beyond Patanjali in extending Indian epistemology. The difference was explained beautifully by Swami Sarvapriyananda in a lecture to IIT Kanpur but you (all readers) may need to have the patience to listen to 3 hours of it in two parts for a one minute ‘masterclass’ response on the difference in approaches by Patanjali and Adi Sankara ! A YouTube link of the first is here hopefully leading you to next –
4. Sabdha when understood as testimony of rishis aligns to a better understanding of Agama than if seen as a need for ‘blind’ following of the text. Thus, a healthy suspension of disbelief is created in one’s mind to increase ‘faith’ or shraddha in one’s own path of inquiry. This sense is lost in the either-or choice presented in the blog between Sabdha and Agama only to assign it as a cause to explaining a ‘fallback in scientific progress in India’. This is the intellectual allegation against the blog which is otherwise very lucid.
5. The ‘apparence’ of ‘fallback in scientific progress in near history of India’ –
It is clear when we look at civilizational progress that pursuit of epistemological progress is independent of material progress. The error or confusion in equating scientific progress or the lack of it to material progress is the ’cause’ behind an alternative explanation proposed to differentiate ‘agama’ and ‘sabdha’ in the context of this blog and its otherwise excellent intent.
Lastly, you are a great karma yogi and I am sure your perseverance will see its consequence.
I thank you for being supportive of my independence of opinion thus far and I hope the readers are atleast partly informed if not entirely to extract the essence of your wonderful blog and increase their awareness of the glorious heritage of all that we call ‘India’ today in English language.